|
Published: June 21, 2008
“Desperate to evade democracy”
Homosexual groups ask California Supreme Court to take marriage initiative off November ballot
 The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality California filed a lawsuit in the California Supreme Court yesterday seeking to block a constitutional initiative that would ban same-sex marriage from appearing on the November ballot.
In a press release, the four organizations, which were joined by four individuals, said “the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed,” although no details on how the rules were allegedly broken were provided.
The California Secretary of State ruled on June 2 that supporters of the marriage initiative, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, had gathered more than the necessary 694,354 signatures needed to place the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. If approved by voters, it would overturn a 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court on May 15 declaring state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
“We filed this lawsuit because the sponsors of the initiative haven’t followed the very Constitution they’re trying to change,” said Stephen V. Bomse of Heller Ehrman LLP, a lawyer in the suit, in the press release. “For good reason, there’s a strict process for making revisions to our Constitution, and it’s more involved than simply collecting petition signatures. That process is in place to safeguard our basic form of government, especially the most basic principle of equal protection of the laws. Therefore we are filing this suit today to ask the California Supreme Court to enforce those rules and to require the proponents to follow the correct procedure if they wish to make this far reaching change to our state Constitution.”
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who opposed same-sex marriage when the Supreme Court heard the issue, responded quickly to the lawsuit. “Equality California and its allies are desperate to evade democracy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy in a prepared statement. “First, they used the courts to erase the votes of nearly 5 million Californians who voted to protect marriage. Now, they are trying to silence the people’s voice forever.
“This is just another attempt to force a radical political agenda upon the people of California. The opponents of marriage are willing to use any means necessary to impose their will. ADF and ProtectMarriage will defend the right of the people to participate in democratic process and vote on the constitutional amendment,” Lavy added.
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:41 AM By BJ
As much as we love and respect all homosexuals the practice of homosexuality is contrary to the plan of God and we must not fear thew wrath of those who do not like to be reminded of this.
Satan ofcourse will do all in his power, and use all those who are, wittingly or unwittingly, in his power to achieve his plan. Democracy can be easily sidestepped if evil so wishes it. Only prayer and a return of lost sheep to the fold can defeat evil.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:11 AM By Jose Maria
Four groups with representatives and four people want to ask the Supreme Court to eliminate the democratic rights of 694,354 (that's close to one million) signatures of American citizens from placing this issue on the November 4, ballot. Wasn't there a state wide vote already a number of years ago supported and voted on by an overwhelming 60 per cent plus of the voters of California voting to prohit same-sex marriage? Were those constitutional guidelines not adhered to at that time as well? Will those that do not support same-sex marriage in California be able to ever be able to adhere to what ever these constitutional guidelines are? What exactly are the constitutional guidelines that they are talking about that were not upheld the first time and now this time? I am sure it has nothing to do with the original constitution and declaration of Independence by the founding fathers of America in 1776. The will of the people for the peolpe. That's what America is all about. The people of California have already spoken once and are about to speak twice. That's what the constitution is all about. That's why American men and women fought and died in Two World Wars and other wars since then to preserve rights and freedoms which also include the rights to freedom of religious expression. That's the only constitution that these judges should make their decisions on. The will of the people for the people is the foundation of what makes America a unique and great nation on earth. God Bless America.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:42 AM By Margie
And I quote Isaiah1.16-18
Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes;
cease doing evil; learn to do good.
Make justice your aim: redress the wronged...
Come now. let us set things right says the Lord:
Though your sins be like scarlet,
they may become white as snow;
Though they may be crimsom red,
they may become white as wool.
To you, O Lord, we lift up our prayers. Let us not be put to shame.
It is a time for evangelization. A time for mass conversion.
I suggest we all avail ourselves of the resources contained in JP II's Theology of the Body. Currently, Holy Family Parish in Citrus Hts, CA is piloting a course on Theology of the Body. We need to understand who we are, why we are here, what our purpose is...then, spread the good news to our lost brothers and sisters.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:15 AM By ldfrmc
“First, they used the courts to erase the votes of nearly 5 million Californians who voted to protect marriage. Now, they are trying to silence the people’s voice forever."
4.6 million out of 30 million people in California in 2000. Not a majority by a long shot.
No one's voice is silenced "forever." ADF just has to go to legislature, get a Constitutional convention arranged and resubmit the "revision" to the Constitution. It's not an "amendment."
Ah... democracy! Ah... California legal process!
Live by the rules, play by the rules.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:53 AM By John K.
The problem is that you will do anything to write your discrimination into the law. The gay groups are right: In order to revise the state constitution-- that is, overrule a fundamental principle like equal protection-- the legislature either has to refer the question to the people by a 2/3 vote, or they have to call a constitutional convention, I believe also by a 2/3 vote (could be wrong on the number). An amendment-- that is, something that simply clarifies or enhances an existing constitutional provision-- is the only constitutional change that may be enacted by initiative. It's right there in the constitution. This is not a close question. The only question was whether equal protection applied to same-sex marriage, which the court held las month that it does. The rest is not even an issue. It's still possible (or probable from what I hear) that the vote will take place in November, but if it passes, the Court will THEN apply the constitution as it is clearly written and invalidate the initiative revision.
You love to cry "will of the people" "rule of law" and all this stuff. However, when you don't like the law as it stands, i.e. true equal protection or clear procedures for revising the constitution, all of that goes right out the window. We are not a direct, majority-rules democracy no matter how much you wish we were. We are a constitutional democracy with constitutional rules in place to check the will of the majority in appropriate instances. You can revise the state constitution if you play by the rules-- elect state legislators so that they will refer the question to the people or call a constitutional convention. Just because gay rights groups know what they are doing, doesn't mean we're skirting democracy.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:36 AM By JPeterman
"Not a majority by a long shot. " eh ldfrmc? But that's where you're wrong, it was a majority of the people that voted. If people don't or won't exercise their right to vote, that's their own problem. The homosexual lobby will not be allowed to deny the will of the people. Indeed, in a democracy we live by the vote and play by the vote.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:45 AM By John L. Sillasen
The homosexualists are trying to roll God's faithful over for Satan, just as they did at Abraham's door. This is what they do, not a circumstantial strategy. Homosexuality is more than a simple sin; St Paul says it is the consequence of sin. Thus, the nature of the gay agenda acts out this consequence by scourging the sinful world. The Church intervenes, to halt the consequences of sin in both the individual and all of society. There are some Catholics who vainly dream that their lives consist of minding their own business and living a good life ... but the Church says Christianity is the preaching, teaching and discipling of the nations ... of all the world.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:45 AM By Wm. Hamilton
John K does not know what he is talking about. The language of the state constitution is plain and simple. Here is what it says about popular amendment of the constitution in its entirety: "CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail."
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:48 AM By John L. Sillasen
What Margie says. Plus, what Pope Benedict XVI said for Lent ... the Church engages the world in the manner explained by St Augustine in his Confessions. Homosexualism is the present scourge of God. Picture this: Flashing scimitars on one side, total corruption on the other. What, pray tell, is the Church to do? What is society to do? What Margie says.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:53 AM By John
This is stupid... The same thing happened years ago with inter-racial marriage... do a simple google search and look it up... same arguments used then are being used now. Now think how silly you would look if you tried to ban "inter-racial" marriage. Move on, take care of the needy... spread Gods love, don't spew hate.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:58 AM By Anne T.
Moses in the Old Testament had an intertribal marriage, yet he banned sodomy.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:17 AM By Maria C
Those in support of same sex marraige makes me sick! You are hypocrates. You keep breaking the law (and the constitution in which this country was founded on) and the flawed law keeps allowing your agenda to follow through, yet you judge us who want to fight for what has always been true marriage between one man and one women. Homosexuality is not a race, it is a sexual dysfunction, a personal lifestyle away from God and what is holy. John you spew hate against God with your acceptance of gay marraige! The one who is hateful here is your agenda! Against children, against families, against God. That is what gay marraige supporters do, they are against all that is good and only for their own acceptance of lifestyle and selfishness. So John stop being hateful. John L. Sillasen thanks for posting truths here, perhaps these unwanted visitors to this Catholic website will understand that their pro-gay agenda are not acceptable to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His church!
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:20 AM By Jo Ann
This brings to mind what happened in Massachusetts when the people gathered enough signatures to add to the ballot "Marriage is between one man and one woman" and the legislature stalled and refused to even bring the issue up for discussion until the deadline was past. Constantly quoted is "equal protection" but for whom? If you dare quote the Bible or describe sodomy as sin, you are accused of "Hate speech". Just look at Canada. We are not far behind! The goal is not "equal rights." It is acceptance, approval and finally "normalization". I don't doubt one minute that "gay rights groups know (exactly) what they are doing". And it wasn't by a 2/3 vote. It was one ( un-elected) judge who cast the deciding vote in both Massachusetts and California!
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:30 AM By J.Owens
it's almost as if something diabolical is taking place
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:49 AM By JOE
Satan is intervening to forbid the people of California to express their beliefs as to same sex marriages. May God and the Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the Americas, give California its God given right to vote on this November's iniative. God the father, pray for our state.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:59 AM By BJ
Reminding people what is acceptable and not acceptable in the eyes of God is certainly NOT hate. If we didn`t love our children we would let them do whatever they wanted and agree to their every demand. Could we be accused of
´not moving on` and promoting ´hate´ because we have the obligation to tell them clearly what is right and what is not? Don´t play the game of accusing everyone who is fighting the battle to be faithful to the teachings of the ´Good News´ and indeed the Old Testament as ´spewing hate´. You cannot `move on` simply to make non Christian teachings acceptable and by saying this very loud and clear our desire to look after the needy and spread the Love of God etc. is strengthened and holistically includes the eternal soul as well as the earthly body.
All sinners are loved by God and he expects the faithful to preach the Good News ..... not twist it to suit vocal minorities, who scream accusations of `hate` when they don`t get what they want.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:39 PM By Margaret
God never forbade inter-racial marriage. Marriage is a Covenant from God between a man and woman. A husband and wife. Any combination no matter what colour or race between a man and woman, husband and wife is a Covenant from God. Nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is inter-racial marriage ever forbidden. There is no other Covenant from God.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:48 PM By John M
attn: J.Owens, It is diabolical! My wife and I were there at SF city hall on Monday, you could feel the oppression.Please pray that men and women would see the face of the "pied piper"
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 12:51 PM By PATRICK
Show me a "homosexul marriage" and I will show you a square circle.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:26 PM By Adrian
The irony is that Catholic means 'universal'
... you guys dont seem to be living up to your message.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:40 PM By Alex
Funny how this web site states the groups against the marriage amendment is "desperate to evade democracy". ..
What about the groups that were for the marriage amendment; asking the Supreme Court plus the Appeals Court for a stay until after the November election? ...
All of you talk about Satin and te devil is at work. Please who is the groups filled with hate.
Of course I don't expect this to be posted since the editor will just edit anything he or she so desires.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:01 PM By John
Leave the gays alone... you're going after their right to marriage... if we start passing initiatives taking away rights, your may be next, it happened in Germany, don't let it happen in America... think about it...
A poem from World War 2...
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:17 PM By Papamac
Satan and his Sodomites will not give up. They have the demoncratic party firmly in their corner, they have babblingbabama as an enthustic supporter, they have Judges who make up laws as they go along. We did vote for an end to all of this evil, but then we turned around and voted in old line demoncrats to our legislature, they apponit their Judge buddies who they know will support the sodomites. ARE WE STUPID OR WHAT???? VOTE MORALITY, IT IS THAT SIMPLE. MAY GOD BLESS
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:22 PM By Charles O'Connell
Better listen to what the other side is saying - they don't have the majority on their side, but they have all the power elites. According to the San Francisco Chronicle [ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/BAC211CKE5.DTL&type=politics ], "under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters". If this is true, and the initiative process has this limitation, the opposition might prevail.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:00 PM By Maria C
Papamac I appreciate your strong conviction and value what you just expressed, it is refreshing. We need more good people with a backbone to stand up and speak up for what is right.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Why didn't God convert the homosexual Sodom instead of torching it? After all, his faithful family escaped it, so why did God then slay those cities?
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:48 PM By Protoobserver
If they had any sense, they would be desperate to evade divine punishment. A good place to start is repentance and the Sacrament of Penance. May God's will be done.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:20 PM By Helen
John you make some very valid points in your post only you are not looking at the whole big picture because the way things are going everything is going full circle once again just like it was over 2000 years ago. They are coming after the Christians especially Catholics unless people speak up boldly and firmly right now. Who else do you see defending the Church in the mainstream media today? That's the whole point of people posting on California Catholic Daily. Who is defending Christians especially Catholics and the Church in the major media today? I really hope you do not remain silent anymore because as you quite accurately point out in your final comment there will be no one left to speak out if California Catholic Daily posters and other Catholic Internet site posters and blogs don't tell real truth about what is going on today. Once again, your point is well made only look at the whole picture not just a small part of it.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:13 PM By Salvatore G
Lucifer's show will lose every step of the way, he will never give up. The Watcher is on our side, all we got to do is follow His Words in the Bible.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 8:31 PM By Anne T.
Get real John! If homosexuals have the right to marry, than a man has the right to marry two women, and a woman has a right to marry two men, and a mother has a right to marry her son, and a father his daughter. The ban on sodomy is in the same set of legislation in the Bible as the ban on all those laws. There was one exception. Jesus Christ said Moses allowed polygamy, a man with two wives, because of the hardness of the people's hearts, but that from the beginning it was not so--meaning marriage was between one man and one woman, Adam and Even. Therefore Christ and His Church banned polygamy. No civilization in the history of the world has allowed two men or two women to marry. If they had they would not have survived. After some or many cultures contracept. abort and sodomize themselves to death, the Muslims can pick up the pieces, and under Sharia Law you will really find out what stoning to death means.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 8:34 PM By Anne T.
A correction to my last post: "a ban on those laws", should be a "ban on those sins"
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:15 PM By Mary Ann, SingingMum
Wow, can't say I'm surprised at this move to further suppress a vote of the people. But look at the anger it stirs. You'd think proponents of gay 'marriage' would be smarter than to invite a backlash. Tunnel vision, I suppose. As to the 'either/or' shallow thinking, it is possible, even desirable, to have compassion AND standards. Disagreeing with people about homosexual lifestyles (or other immoral lifestyles, etc.) does not equate with hate. I hope people with common sense start to come out of the fearful stupor engendered by labels like 'hater', 'homophobe', 'bigot', etc. These terms are most frequently used as a bully whip to silence people. While hate exists in the hearts of a few, I'd bet that most people who oppose the homosexual lifestyle feel that its against nature, God's law, and that the acts are just plain gross.
|
Posted Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:50 PM By John
How many of you have actually read the supreme court ruling? Gays have a right to marry... you shouldn't try to impose your belief system upon others... as I mentioned earlier, the inter-racial arguments were the same... "If God had meant Black and White people to marry, he wouldn't have created separate races; etc. etc. etc." Gays can marry in California. The sun still rises in the morning, the birds are still singing... the price of a gallon of gas is out of control, but that's another issue... ;-) Relax, enjoy your life and be kind to one another.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:33 AM By BJ
John sells the live and let live, be kind to everybody,easy path, very limited restrictions `belief system`/religion.
Wow! Why not just do away with `religion`and have a ´be kind and accepting` enforced by `supreme court´ human legislation for whatever behaviour secular man deems to be acceptable?
Who do you think is the promoter behind this kind of
´do as thou wilt' philosophy John?
It is Love for souls which drives the faithful to stand by the teachings of the New Testament. The practice of homosexuality/polygamy/ murder/adultery/ rascism/euthanasia etc.etc. is not acceptable in the eyes of God.... there is no way around these basic simple truths and basic truths cannot be bartered away for fear of screamed accusations of ´hate´ or intolerance. The Laws of God are not
governed by the `supreme` court of human law.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:44 AM By JPeterman
John, just plain silly arguments you make. There is no comparison between the racist laws of the past and the citizens of California (by majority) saying they don't want the Sacrament of marriage to include two of the same sex. But nice try though, from the beginning, the homosexual lobby has hitched their agenda to the Civil Rights movement.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:57 AM By John L. Sillasen
The Calif Supreme Court is not above the law. When it legislates from the bench, it is actually violating the law, and the perps need to be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison and fines ... guess it would be something like malfaction in office and abuse of authority and power ... like "high crimes ... "; at the very least the CA state Surpeme Court should be voted out of office and impeached. The very fact that our government provides these options means that our civilization does not hold the judicial branch as the top authority. A few decades ago, its chief justice, Rose Bird, was kicked out for being a menace to society.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:37 PM By Maria C
John L. Sillasen how do we proceed to convict the perps. What can we do to get these judges out of office for breaking the law and the will of the people. I want to know, I want it done. How do we start the impeachment process on the CA state Supreme Court? I want to know, and I pray that we start this process now.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:14 PM By Grisha
JPeterman ~ No one - At least no one I've heard about - is talking about the "Sacrament of marriage to include two of the same sex." The public policy issue is CIVIL marriage. The Church holds there is a big difference between the two.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:54 PM By John L. Sillasen
It is up to the voters to elect rational and moral legislators. And also, the Calif Supreme Court is elected by the voters, who can elect replacements. As to how to persuade the voters, keep publishing the facts about their government in action and what voters can do. It's an age old story, where the main characters (voters) lose their common sense through just exactly the same means then as now ... which used to be called "wine, women and song", now aka "drugs, sex, rock and roll"; even Jason and his Argonauts got caught up with the wild life, which they sobered up from just in time. But "just in time" does not always happen in history ... Rome fell, Alexandria fell, Persia faded, civilizations come and go ... for exactly the same reason. Will the USA fall or wake up and restore itself?
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:00 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
There is a difference, indeed, between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. There is a difference between a sacramental marriage and a natural marriage (as between two non-Christians). But sacramental marriage does not change the nature or purposes of marriage -- it merely elevates them. Marriage is first a natural institution; through the Church, it takes on a supernatural character. So, anything called marriage cannot violate the basic character of marriage as established by God when he created man and woman. Same-sex marriage is, thus, an impossibility. To call a same-sex union "marriage" is then a lie and a degrading of the natural institution of marriage.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:23 PM By Anne T.
If you don't think so-called "same-sex" civil marriages will not help destroy heterosexual marriages, just look up "Marriage Penalty" online. To help those in domestic partnerships, etc., they have stolen taxes from heterosexual families with children, thereby discouraging heterosexual people with children to marry. As one Republican put it, it is an immoral tax.
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:57 PM By HockeyCEO
There is a simple solution to all of this....
http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/
|
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:08 PM By Anne T.
Better wording for my last post would be, "They have stolen tax deductions from heterosexual couples with or without children to give to others who file separately.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 4:30 AM By Angela
John L. Sillasen you make excellent points about those ancient civilizations that fell before. Each and every one of those civilizations and others that have already be used as examples became morally corrupt from within and literally fell by the weight of their own corruption because they all thought they didn't need God and could do their own thing. Does that sound familiar to anyone? In the Tower of Babel confusion reigned supreme when the king said that his civilization was greater than God's because it reached into the heavens. The result was mass confusion and people speaking in many different tongues that they could not even understand each other. The other John, even in the last days of Noah, the birds were also singing and people were still getting married while lawlessness and immorality of every kind was still going on. That did not stop the wrath of God because the flood that had been warned to Noah to build the ark did take place and purified the world that Noah lived. Do not continue to mock the Lord our God in vain. For a day to the Lord is as 1000 years to mankind. God will not allow this mockery of him and his laws for eternal life to continue forever. With regards to the soaring price of gas this is a question for the next American President to contend with because the future viability least you take this lightly too of the North American Auto Industry and the big three auto makers is in serious jeapordy. I would humbly recommend that all Americans and people that work in the auto industry and related industries that rely on their living wages to pray to almighty God to intervene on this very serious development that will have major repurcussions on the entire American economy if is not dealt with and resolved soon. Pray the Rosary every day for America.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 5:20 AM By Fr. M.P.
More dictatorship of relativism from the homosexuals. So you can see their process. They claim they want tolerance (but only one way), and when they get a few things their way, homosexuals are the most intolerant around because they want you in jail for even thinking in disagreement with their unnatural, incurable disease-spreading behavior (from a natural law perspective).
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 9:18 AM By Margie
I quote the late, great John Paul II in his letter to Families, Pauline 1994:
" Marriage and the family are 'placed at the center of the great struggle between good and evil, between life and death, between love and all that is opposed to love.' "(LF, n.23)
While God's plan for the body is union, communion, marriage, which brings life...
Satan has a counter plan for the body which is separation, fracture, divorce, which brings death.
Satan seeks to counter God's plan by plagiarizing the sacraments. Thus hijacking the sacrament of marriage with homosexual 'marriage.'
Please folks, read up on Theology of the Body because our late, great Pope was way ahead of his time in realizing the cunning designs of the Fallen Angel. We seek life, eternal life for ourselves and our families. The Father of Lies wants to obscure the true meaning of the sacraments leading to eternal death. Don't be deceived. Be not afraid to proclaim what you hear from the rooftops.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 12:20 PM By Elizabeth
These people are even SADDER than I thought!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 1:37 PM By Bruce
Chatting on this website is not enough! We need to band together and work as a team, volunteering to do whatever we can to stop the evil in the gay and lesbian organizations trying to pervert our children and society. When an opportunity calls for you to pitch in and help, do it. If you are a leader, start something rolling. We need to head to the polls, assist those without transportation to get to the polls and vote against the corruption and evil purpetrators. Let's go for a constitutional amendment to stop this once and for all. We need to help rehabilitate the gay and lesbians. Do not condone, nor back-off from voicing your opinion just to avoid a confrontation. Like St Paul we need to correct the evil. We out number the gay and lesbians 50 to 1, so challenge the evil, fight-back peacefully and stand up for what is morally right. Get involved my dear straight and kind Christian heterosexuals, the future of our and our children's society is at stake! We have to draw the line in the sand and take firm action now. Our corrupt and immoral politicians are unable and unwilling to stand up and fight. Most importantly we need to pray for God to stop this evil of homosexuality. God is omnipotent and listens to our prayers, He will conquer the evil that the gay and lesbians heap upon us. Pray, Pray, and Pray until the evil is gone. Do not give up, we don't have to put up with it, nor should we.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:22 PM By John K.
Wm. Hamilton:
There is a differentiation here between amending and revising. Let's take a look at the rest of Article 18:
"SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal,
two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an
AMENDMEN or REVISION of the Constitution..."
Now, let's read Sec. 3 in context:
SEC. 3. The electors may AMEND the Constitution by initiative.
Notice what's missing from the initiative power? The ability to REVISE. The other section you quoted was 4, which simply explains that a majority vote is needed by the people for either an initiative or referendum. It does not mean an initiative can revise the constitution by majority vote. I'll refer you back to my earlier post on June 21 at 9:53 PM for the difference between an amendment and a revision, but suffice it to say that the marriage initiative is almost certainly a revision, not an amendment.
If you still don't believe me, check out a case called McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333, which says “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.” Also, see Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336.
Who doesn't know what he's talking about? Don't ever fool yourself into thinking constitutional law is "plain and simple."
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:23 PM By John K.
Maria C: Gay marriage supporters break no law and do not violate the constitution. Only in your theocratic dream world do we do so.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:32 PM By John K.
Anne T: You're about 5 cents short of a Nickel. Each marital arrangement should be debated on its merits. Allowing two consenting gay adults to marry does NOT lead to allowing an adult to marry a child. A child, by definition, cannot consent. Neither can an animal. You guys seem to have a real problem understanding the concept of consent. Also, I love how the marital relationship you don't like that the Bible actually does sanction you explain away. Since when does God allow people to sin without rebuke because of "the hardness of their hearts"? I'm glad to see you're a psychic as well. I'm impressed that you can accurately describe what would have happened to a civilization that allowed gay marriage based upon absolutely nothing but your own sense of what is right and wrong. The whole point here is that you would love nothing better than for the US to become a Christian Iran. We're not gonna let you.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:34 PM By John K.
BJ: Your suggestion that we do away with religion and just be kind an accepting is the best idea I've ever heard from a religious person.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:36 PM By John K.
JPeterman: Why isn't it the same? You don't think the people in California who instituted bans on interracial marriage voted by a majority? They didn't want the sacrament of marriage to include people of different races. What's the difference in that logical structure?
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:39 PM By John K.
John Sillasen: Good luck putting the justices in jail. Seriously, are you really bringing this up? What do you think this is? I love how every time a court makes a ruling that religious conservatives don't like they want to throw the judges in jail. Do you hear gays suggesting the same when we lose a round in court? No.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:42 PM By John K.
Christopher Zehnder: Wrong. The government marries people without regard to religion, as per the first amendment of the US constitution. Period. You can have all the mystical supernatural beliefs you want, but that doesn't change reality. If society say it's marriage, it's marriage whether your religion likes it or not.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:45 PM By John K.
Anne T: Pretend each member of a male gay married couple or domestic partnership married a female lesbian member of such a relationship instead and got the same benefits. Your argument about "stealing" benefits from straights rests upon the assumption that gay people won't marry at all, and thus don't get the benefits of a single marriage that they deserve anyway if they would marry someone of the opposite sex. Sounds to me like YOU are the one trying to steal from gays.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:48 PM By John K.
Fr. M.P. : No, we want you in jail for physically harming us, and we want you sanctioned for denying us jobs for which we are qualified just because you don't like us. We can do neither of those things to you based upon your religion, so it's only fair. We don't tell you how to worship in your church, but you tell us how to marry. THAT is why our tolerance is a two-way street and yours is not.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 3:53 PM By John K.
You people need to do something constructive with your lives instead of worrying about gays and trying to harm us as much as you possibly can. Seriously, it is very sad. What is sadder to me is that when you die you will not be able to know how wrong you were and what a waste of life you'd truly been. In any event, you WILL lose this battle. If the initiative passes in November, you will still lose. It will just be struck down by the court or voted on again a couple of years down the road and will be overturned. Public opinion continues to shift in gays' favor and away from your superstition. Soon you won't even be able to make the "will of the people" argument anymore. You'll be totally out of arguments. You are delaying the inevitable, and again, wasting your life. I hope you see the light before you waste too much more of it.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 4:11 PM By Wm. Hamilton
John K. -- I was unaware of the distinction in case law between amendment and revision. Thank you for the references. As much as it pains me to admit, you may be right on the merits. If it is true that revision requires action by the legislature, then your side should win, for the initiative clearly is a revision, I think. Moreover, from the standpoint of pure legal theory, if there actually exists an equal protection basis for allowing same-sex partners to marry (on this I think the court majority was wrong by the way), then we can no more amend the constitution to prohibit it than we could re-institute slavery or take back suffrage from women. As this argument continues, I have concluded that I shall likely just not vote on this initiative. I do not want to condone same-sex marriage, which I find morally unacceptable because of the underlying unnatural sex acts involved and because it does unspeakable damage to our centuries-long understanding of marriage as the basis upon which society transmits values through a family. But neither can I accept the idea that a majority can deny legitimate rights to minorities because of the violence that would do to the fundamental underpinnings of our social pact. I still remember my civic teacher (in a Catholic school no less) driving into my head that the U.S. is a government of laws, not men. So, John K., pat yourself on the back. You have persuaded me. Let's hope the court removes the initiative from the ballot and spares me the angst of having to hold back my hand in order not to vote yes on the marriage amendment.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 5:34 PM By John K.
Wm. Hamilton: I think I might faint. I don't think this has ever actually happened to me before, haha. I hope you are serious. Anyway, the position that you outline is all I ask. I don't expect you as a Catholic to necessarily like the Court's ruling or like the idea of gay relationships or gay marriage, but just to realize that there is a fairness and a process here that, at least according to American values, rises above religious considerations. I am also pleased to hear that your Catholic school taught good American civics. Anyway, again, I hope you are actually serious (forgive me for wondering since, as I said, this is a new one for me), and have a wonderful day.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 5:36 PM By John K.
Wm: Unfortunately, however, from what I hear, these inititiatives don't get removed from the ballot before the vote; they must be challenged afterward. Obviously, I would like nothing better than for it to be removed, but it doesn't seem that it will.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 6:38 PM By Wm. Hamilton
John K. -- I am entirely serious. You should not underestimate the ability of Catholics to understand the distinction you are making. Absent respect for the law, we would be doomed to a tyranny of the majority -- or worse. Again, don't get me wrong: I do not think the court's majority was correct. But I also don't think we can toss the constitution out the window when it does not suit us.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 6:53 PM By Joseph
Here is a prayer that applies to the morality crisis we are faced with today: PRAYER TO THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN August Queen of Heaven, Sovereign Mistress of the Angels, who didst receive from the beginning the mission and the power to crush the serpent’s head, we beseech thee to send Thy holy Angels, that under Thy command and by they power they may pursue the evil spirits, encounter them on every side, resist their bold attacks, and drive them hence into the abyss of woe. Most holy Mother, send Thy angles to defend us and to drive the cruel enemy from us. All ye holy Angels and Archangels help and defend us. Amen. O good and tender Mother! Thou shalt ever be our Love and our Hope. Holy Angels and Archangels keep and defend us. Amen. Nihil Obstat: Arthur Scanlon, S.T.D Imprimatur : Patrick Cardinal Hayes
Archbishop of NY 5 Sep 1936
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 7:47 PM By John K.
Glad to hear it Wm.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 7:59 PM By RR
John K: Looks like by the number of postings you have here that you are the one who needs something constuctive to do in your life. You are way to busy on this blog. Thou dost protest too much!! I hope you see the light before too long. So sad!!
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 9:12 PM By John K.
RR: I took about ten minutes to read through these posts and respond to the more ridiculous ones. And, I apparently convinced someone who was going to vote for the amendment not to do so. Every step toward treating fellow humans (at least the ones who respect others themselves) with respect helps, and it's certainly worth it for me. I just hope you don't look back one day and think, "why did I spend so much time trying to hurt other people?"
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 9:19 PM By Anne T.
John, no one was talking about anyone marrying a child. I was talking about the lawfulness of a mother marrying her adult son, or a father his adult daughter. Whai is to stop them if two men can "marry" or two women? Can an uncle marry his niece? Can a brother and sister marry? If not? Why not, if two people of the same-sex can marry? Let's face it. Some parts of the were not meant for sexual intercourse, and that is what the whole prohibition in the Old and New Testament is all about. Therefore it is a perverted behavior, just as marrying one's close kin is perverted behavior.
|
Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 11:59 PM By Steve1
Hey John K,
Ever read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:20 AM By John L. Sillasen
John K, you are so full of deception you surprise yourself, and other homosexualists with you shoddy concept of "fairness". You say you spent ten minutes reading and figured it all out ... that's the problem, you haven't a clue as to what the act of reasoning is all about. Try it some time.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:58 AM By Dawn
Civil Rights should not be put up for a popular vote and it doesn't look like it will make it to the ballot in November. Great news for fair-minded people!
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/legcomm061708.htm
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:01 AM By Dawn
Civil Rights should not be put up for a popular vote and it doesn't look like it will make it to the ballot in November. Great news for fair-minded people!
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/legcomm061708.htm
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:47 AM By Anne T.
Regarding my last e-mail, Obama talks about the so-called "Hicks from the Sticks". Well, it sounds as if he has a few of them voting for him except they are called "educated" city people. Even most of the so-called "Hicks from the Sticks" no better than then to perform sodomy or marry their own kin.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:35 AM By Anne T.
The "no" and extra "then" really were typos in my last e-mail. Never-the-less, all you smart people out there get the picture.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:42 AM By Anne T.
Dawn every person with commense, including those of all races, know that so-called same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Civil Rights. It is just the confirmation of sinful behavior, such as allowing incest would be.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:56 AM By Anne T.
Again, Dawn, many people of all races signed the petition to put marriage between only a man and a woman on the ballot, and some people from all races got signatures for the petition.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:08 PM By Anne T.
Also, Dawn, maybe I should clarify something. It is this, I am sure that some of the people who will vote for McCain will not have the best intentions, either.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:59 PM By John K.
Anne T.: I understand your point now. However, each issue should be decided on its own merits. Gay marriage is certainly not harmful to anyone. All reputable studies confirm that children of such relationships turn out no different than children of straight parents. However, it is known that biological children of close relatives produce genetic disorders. We can go on and on about the pros and cons of each relationship, but that's not the point. The point is they are not all the same, and it is intellectually lazy to treat them all the same, i.e. condemn gay marriage because incest produces known harms.
Steve1: I have read the storey of Sodom and Gomorrah. Aside from it being fantasy like most of the rest of the Bible, it's also cited in several different places in the Bible without reference to homosexuality being the sin that caused God to destroy the city. I'm not going to argue Biblical interpretation with you other than to suggest that your way is not necessarily the right way.
John L. Sillasen: I spent ten minutes on THIS forum responding to posts. I've spent far more than ten minutes over the past few years thinking about and arguing about this and other related topics. If my reasoning is so off, why don't you respond with some substance instead of dismissing me out of hand. Oh, and try using something besides the Bible to make your argument. It's easy to win an argument when your whole premise is that your source of evidence is infallible and invulnerable to attack.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:05 PM By Wake up!!!
SAN FRANCISCO - In less than a day, an electrical storm unleashed nearly 8,000 lightning strikes that set more than 800 wildfires across Northern California — a rare example of "dry lightning" that brought little or no rain but plenty of sparks to the state's parched forests and grasslands.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:05 PM By John K.
Anne T.: You assume everyone agrees that there is such a thing as sin in the first place. Incest has known and appreciable harms to unconsenting third parties, namely children of the relationship who are vulnerable to genetic deformities. All reputable studies show no harm to children of same-sex couples. No harm, no foul. Sin has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter who signed a petition. People of all religions, races, genders, sexual orienations, or whatever other category you can think of are stupid and prejudiced. I'm not denying that. The point is, you would like your religion to be the final word on public policy, and you would like "because God says so" to be a good enough reason to deny rights to people. Neither is true.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:47 PM By John K.
Wake up!!!: Are you suggesting that these things happened because of gay marriage? How do you explain all the floods and tornados in the past couple of weeks in the midwestern states who have banned gay marriage? How do you explain the tornado that killed those boyscouts in Iowa? Please spare me the "God's wrath" garbage.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:00 PM By Fr. M.P.
John K, if you looked at the Catholic faith, you would know that it condemns murder of anyone, sinner or not. Do you want homosexuals put in jail for harming normal people? Neither the article nor I was talking about jobs - why did you? Marriage is naturally between a man and a woman - they fit together naturally, and prolong the human race. (Obvious, isn't it?) Homosexuals do neither. Even the surgeon general has said that certain body parts are not designed for sex acts. You want to tell me how to think and restrict what I am allowed to say because I don't agree with your unnatural, incurable disease spreading behaviors (not to mention sins). Why do you deny me those rights and attack my freedom?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:12 PM By Sam
John K's statements are like an Ad sponsored and paid for by citizens for Satan or the ACLU. Wake up John, hells fire is forever. You appear to be defying the church and God's teachings. If so, you and your gay pride won't winn. Do you claim to be a Catholic or are you a hypocrit?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:47 PM By Clara
John L. you are right about John K. Based on his answers to serious issues I would agree that he only spent 10 minutes writing 10 postings. That works out to about 1 Minute for each posting.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:52 PM By Anne T.
John K. that is not the point I was trying to make. At least not in my last e-mail. The point is that sodomy is a disease-ridden unheathy activity for the persons doing it and should not be encouraged. The homosexuals are not only suffering from certain types of anal cancer and venereal diseases, many are suffering from diseases and cancers of the mouth from the HVP ( I think I got the initials right ) virus transferred during what is called oral sex. Even some heterosexuals are getting some of those diseases and cancers.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:51 PM By Steve1
Dear John K,
Based on your arguments that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is merely a fantasy or that their sin had nothing to do with homosexuality tells me one thing: you've reached a point where you will believe whatever you like. You've become your own god. I would like to suggest (if it is not too forward) for you to try saying a rosary every day if you aren't already.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:28 PM By John L. Sillasen
John K, you sure don't know much. God sends mishap on both saint and sinner. Take these things as signs that power and authority are beyond this universe, yet at the same time within this universe and moreover among us. Don't you ever question anything? Don't you ever consider the possibility of truth? Of truth greater than anything that can be made, or made up? Greater than what anyone can perceive? What kind of a life does not question? You need to start asking questions, John K.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:33 PM By John L. Sillasen
John K, I just found your challenge to argue. You want to start by having me deny my God ... What kind of argument would that be? You have your opponent deny that which he intends to defend?! Is your daytime job training suicide bombers?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:35 PM By John K.
Fr.M.P: I don't tell you how to think or what to say, I just exercise MY right to say how stupid you are for thinking or saying those things. However, you right to say and think stops when you commit an actual crime against someone, and if that crime is based upon that person being a member of a large social group you are more dangerous than the average criminal because you have more possible future victims. I'm not here to debate hate crimes laws; my only point was that you accuse gays of wanting to throw you in jail for thinking certain things or saying certain things, and it's not the case. P.S. The Surgeon General is a political appointee. Bush's current appointee, Holzinger, is not going to be approved because of his non-scientific and religiously skewed articles on gays, which he is now trying to distance himself from.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:38 PM By John K.
Sam: I'm absolutely NOT a Catholic. I'm an an agnostic. Hell's fire does not exist, Satan does not exist (although, the ACLU does, and thank goodness). You are certainly welcome to believe in those things. Just don't expect everyone to buy into your fairytales, and DEFINITELY don't expect to make public policy based on it.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM By Grisha
John K.: If you ever decide to explore joining the Catholic Church, please disregard 90% of what you read here. Much of this is the far, far right of Catholicism and has no relationship to the mainstream Church. You may want to speak to a Paulist father. They're all over the country and I think you'd find their perspective a refreshing change form what you've seen here.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:25 AM By Fr. M.P.
John K, I am part of society too. And most people are normal, not homosexual, so imposing your beliefs on us, even in secular terms (let alone sin), is not right. You claim that you are merely calling me stupid and the like. As an aside, we can all see the typical homosexual type of behavior that they consider acceptable in "conversations." But you do want to deny me my right to think and say what is right. You call me a criminal. Criminals are those people who should not be allowed to do what they do. So you do not want to give me my rights to be NORMAL. But your hate makes you blind to the secular facts. Most AIDS cases are homosexuals (68% in 2005)! Do you deny those facts? Spreading incurable and costly diseases - death and destruction. But no matter to homosexual lusting. Nature is obvious John K - men do not fit together with men. Why can you not see that? Is your version of biology different than normal people? Blindness exists because of the homosexual hatred of nature and truth. And I am not even covering the moral death and destruction caused by your system of beliefs. You wanted tolerance for your unnatural behavior, and yet you are not tolerant of my natural behavior and defense thereof. You don't even need religion to see the obvious - human reason is sufficient here. What the Catholic religion sheds light on is why things are the way they are in this regard. And most people in hell didn't believe it existed either. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it untrue. Go on Youtube and search for shows that had people with NDEs that went to hell. They were all surprised too. That is the path you are on, John K, but you can still repent before your last breath. Say a Hail Mary and see.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:35 AM By John L. Sillasen
John K, you make little sense in claiming that you are an agnostic and then insisting that some things do and some things do not exist ... what a muddled mind!
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:29 AM By Christopher Zehnder
John K,
Your post directed to me in no way even addresses what I wrote.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:39 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Hamilton,
The only reason to think that the proposed marriage amendment represents a revision of the constitution is because the supreme court justices said same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. But if the same justices determine that the proposed amendment does not represent a revision of the constitution, why would you have a problem voting for it? I would suggest, too, that an unjust law is no law at all; all law, in order to be just, has to be an application of natural law. Thus to uphold an unjust law undermines the very basis of law and more effectively overturns the rule of law than would a revolution carried out for just reasons. In fact, a just revolution restores the rule of law, even when it overthrows an existing regime and its system of laws.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:39 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
What might a Paulist father tell a homosexual in regards to his homosexuality?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:17 AM By RR
Grisha: I do not live in California, thank God, but if I did I would be very disgusted by your comments to John K. above.These good Catholic people who post on this website are the mainsteam Catholics and Church, the way God intended it to be. It is you and your homosexual ilk that are the minority. The Holy Mother Church will never accept the behavior of homosexuals. There may be Catholic Churches that accept more homosexuals, but not there sexual sins. You are leading this John K. person to believe that the Catholic Church will accept him and his behavior and it WILL NOT. NEVER!!! Woe to any priest who would knowingly give the sacraments to this person or any homosexual who is actively living the homosexual life and behaviors. It is a sacrilige. And woe to the homosexual who is actively indulging in the homosexual sins of the flesh.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:37 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Hamilton,
One more point. You write, "we can no more amend the constitution to prohibit [same-sex marriage] than we could re-institute slavery or take back suffrage from women." Understanding that we are comparing the U.S. and California constitutions and that there are differences between the two, the examples you cite could theoretically be overturned by amendment, since they were both established by amendment. The original 1789 constitution did not forbid slavery; it did not grant women the suffrage. I would think a revision would apply to the essential structure of government established by the constitution -- establishing a dual executive, for instance, or moving from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. But, I do not doubt, the California justices will decide that defining marriage as a union of a man and woman constitutes a revision -- whether it is or not.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:17 AM By Grisha
Christopher ~ My answer is the same as I gave to a Russian Orthodox Priest friend at mass whan he asked if he should take communion. "I don't know" The Paulists are trained and experienced in evagelization through a well thought out, time tested formation and eduacation program. What to say, when to say and how to say anything in pastrol counseling is one of the reasons we try and discern if a man has a true vocation and then give him a lot of training. I've known a couple of guys over the years who refered to themselves as "Self Taught" Protestant ministers. Maybe it works for them but it's not the Catholic way. Look at that Matics guy Ken Fisher talks about on another thread as an example of what I mean.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:27 AM By Grisha
RR: "Me and my homosexual ilk?" One theory of sexuality holds that sexuality is a scale like this (Hetro --- Bi ---Homo) Don't worry, I'm wayyyy over on the Hetro end of the scale.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:38 AM By Christpher Zehnder
Grisha,
You so often recommend the Paulists to homosexuals that I assumed you had an idea of what they might say -- otherwise, how could you judge that they would be fit to deal with those to whom you recommend them? Certainly you have some idea of how best a priest should receive homosexuals who come to him -- and, it seems reasonable to say, you assume the Paulists would fit the bill. How do you think a priest should receive a homosexual man and relay to him, in particular, Church teaching on the morality of homosexual acts?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:18 PM By RR
Grisha: I have read enough of your posts to know you are not gay, your married... but you see nothing wrong with active homosexuals receiving the sacraments and joining the Church. I put you in with the homosexuals because you think there is nothing wrong with what practicing homosexuals do. That is why I said you and your ilk.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:48 PM By Jay
There is a very good, solid Paulist in NYC who has worked with persons with SSA for years. His name is Fr. Jim Lloyd http://www.geocities.com/frjimlloyd/ http://frjameslloyd.blogspot.com/
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 1:30 PM By Ron W.
There is a sad irony about the story of Sodom when understood in its own historical setting. People oppose and abuse homosexual men and women for being different, odd, strange, "queer", outsiders, foreigners in our society. They are disowned by their families, separated from their children, fired from their jobs, evicted from apartments and neighborhoods, insulted by public figures, beaten and killed on the streets, and even thrown out of churches. All this is done in the name of religion and supposed Christian morality. Such oppression is the very sin of which the people of Sodom were guilty. Such behavior is what the Bible truly condemns over and over again. So, those who oppress and condemn homosexuals because of the supposed "sin of Sodom" may themselves be the real "sodomites", as the Bible understands it.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:02 PM By John L. Sillasen
So, Ron W., are you saying that God has condemned Himself for His act of destroying Sodom, Gomorrah, and their nearby towns, hamlets and villages?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:09 PM By John K.
Fr. M.P.: I think you may have been drinking too much communion wine. When exactly did I call you a criminal? You keep accusing me of stopping you from doing something, from being "normal" as you call it. I'm not saying you have to be gay. I'm saying you have to let me be gay. And I'm saying you don't get to restrict my right to benefits based upon your unreasonable conclusion that what I'm doing is wrong. I understand that AIDS affects the gay community disproportionally. So, your solution is to discourage gay people from settling down into monogamous relationships? Makes no sense whatsoever. As far as men fitting together with men, I can assure you from personal experience that we fit together quite well. If you'd like some more education on the subject let me know. As far as my tolerance of you, my tolerance stops when you ask for the right to infringe upon the lives of others which don't personally affect you in any way. Yes, I'm intolerant of intolerance. You've got me on that one. I'm not intolerant of your decision to believe in Catholicism or to be straight. I'm not saying you can't marry who you want to. You are the one telling me who I can and can't marry. Finally, I don't know what NDE stands for (near-death experience?), but if you can show me a YouTube video that proves with credible evidence that someone "went to Hell," I will convert tomorrow. However, coma-induced dreams do not qualify.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:36 PM By Ron W.
John L. - No, you have.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:44 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K,
Marriage is not simply a personal good but a societal institution. To so irrevocably redefine in law the nature and purposes of marriage, as the recognitition of same-sex marriage does, can not help but affect how the union of man and woman for the sake of establishing a family is regarded by society. And how something is regarded, so is it treated. At the very least, the declaration that same-sex marriage is a right implies the governmental power to define and alter the definition of marriage as it sees fit. And so marriage, which has been traditionally been considered as preexisting the state and as deriving its validity from human nature itself, becomes merely another state-sanctioned contract and nothing more. Same-sex marriage completes the state's aggrandizement of power over the source of human society -- the family -- and so over everything in society. So, does same-sex marriage affect us heterosexual married couples? Of course it does. You proponents of same-sex marriage are carrying on a revolution and then act shocked and hurl names when we resist you. Either you really don't get it or you are being disingenous.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:53 PM By John K.
Grisha: Fortunately, I know that many Catholics are not so right wing. Although I don't plan on becoming a Catholic, I appreciate the support of many Catholics.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:57 PM By John K.
Christopher Zehnder: You said anything called marriage can't violate the basic character of marriage as established by God. I said, wrong, if the government calls same-sex relationships "marriage," they are marriage whether God approves or not.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:00 PM By John K.
John Sillasen: Let me clarify: I am a theoretical agnostic. I'm a practical atheist. That means, I leave some room for the possibility that some God exists. If indeed he shows himself to me through some real, hard evidence, I would not hesitate to acknowledge his existance. However, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. In any event, I'm pretty positive that even if SOME god happens to exist that he is not God as described by your religion.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:03 PM By John K.
Zehnder: And who, pray tell, is the arbiter of natural law? You? The Bible? The Koran? If you say the Bible, don't you think it very arrogant to presume that your religious text happens to be the one that determines natural law for everyone on the planet? (Of course you don't because you are blinded to such considerations). In any event, the Supreme Court may simply rule that the question is not ripe for judicial determination until after the vote. That would mean Wm. would have to decide how or if to vote before knowing what the Court would say as to whether the proposal is a revision.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:10 PM By John K.
RR: I love to see division within the church. It's inevitable as the bigoted old guard is replaced by a more informed generation. We're already seeing parishes attempt to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies and the like. While I'm not holding my breath for an "OK" from the Vatican, I take comfort in polls that show that 36% of Catholics support same-sex marriage. That's a LARGE number considering the church's official stance.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:12 PM By John K.
Grisha, but don't you understand? Since you have at least shown some propensity to support gays in an argument, you MUST be gay, right? Hahaha.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:13 PM By John K.
Ron W. gets it. Why don't the rest of you?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 5:25 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K.,
Natural law can be discovered by reason unaided by divine revelation. When I said anything called marriage can not violate the essence of marriage, I was speaking on the level of justice You say, "if the government calls same-sex relationships 'marriage,' they are marriage whether God approves or not." Really? So, if the government calls homosexuals vermin fit for slaughter, they are so, whether God approves or not? Or whether you approve or not? Blacks were justly held in slavery, because the Supreme Court ruled them mere property? It is terrible that, to fulfill your desire for self-affirmation, you would grant the government such absolute power to do as it will. You would reduce us all to slavery so that you can feel you've been raised to equality with married folk. And what else do you plan to use the brute power of government to achieve? How much repression will it take before you can silence that inner voice that whispers, "homosexual relationships are unnatural"? Perhaps you will be able to silence us. But you will not be able to silence the voice.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:08 PM By John K.
Zehnder: Marriage is a societal institution designed to channel sexual drives and create a favorable environment for raising children, if the couple chooses to have those children. Those two goals apply equally to gay and straight couples, as both have sex drives and both may have children. Your position is to deny those advantages to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN. Your position is internally inconsistent in that it claims to want to help children but denies children the benefit of having their parents married at the same time. Gay people have families too. They will continue to form families whether those families are recognized or not. They will continue to have children whether they are allowed to get married or not. All reputable studies show gay parents raise children to be no better or worse off than children of straight couples. That being the case, your position makes no sense other than straight people needing to have marriage to themselves so they can feel special and superior. Beyond that, it simply hurts certain families while helping no one.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:15 PM By John K.
Zehnder: your extension of my statement about the government recognizing gay marriage was a misunderstanding of what I was saying, and perhaps I didn't say it correctly. My point was a matter of definition. If the government says the word "marriage" applies to same-sex couples for the purposes of internal governmental law, then religion has no influence on that. And who exactly are you to tell me what my inner voice tells me? You can continue to wish that I have a voice telling me I'm unnatural, but you're sadly mistaken. It's amazing how someone can equate allowing consenting adults to form a relationship, have children, and create a loving family to slavery. I agree with you on one point: natural law can be discovered through reason. You've yet to give a compelling reason why gays can't marry. I can give you plenty of compelling reasons why blacks shouldn't be subject to slavery or why gays are not fit for slaughter. I'm still waiting to hear your good reasons.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:39 PM By Grisha
Christopher ~ If I can tomorrow I'll get back to you re: your w question about Paulist pastoral practice as well as John K's thought's about my appearing gay. In the meantime, would you please see as I and others have asked about paragraphing? Your post above would be much more readable w/ it. (I'll add underlining, italizing and bolding too. Flaming is just to tawdry.)
Thanks, Grisha
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:32 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K.,
I'm not bringing religion into this discussion at all. Marriage has always referred to a union that is productive of offspring. Granted, some unions are not so productive; but that is on account of accidental defects -- age, sickness, injury, or some abnormality -- not because those united in marriage are the sort of things incapable of siring or bearing children. This is what nearly, if not every, society throughout history has meant by marriage. And why, even in societies tolerant of homosexuality (such as Athens at the time of Socrates) homosexual relationships were not accorded the dignity of marriage. Since words convey meaning and are but symbols for what exists apart from our subjectivity, "marriage" means this sort of union; to give that name to another kind of union is to accord it the dignity and character of true marriage -- which would be a lie. Now, since I have the witness of the ages for my definition of marriage, and your inclusion of homosexual relationships under that title is of recent vintage, it belongs to you to prove your case to me. You have the burden of proof, my friend, not I.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:37 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K.,
No doubt I cannot tell you what your inner voice says to you. But, my good sir, you are spending an inordinate amount of time on a website arguing with those who represent the losing side in the struggle over the nature of sexuality. I don't go on homosexual websites. Why do you care what we think or say, when you are winning and no doubt will ultimately triumph? I surmise it is because the fact that there are those who diapprove of homosexual acts pricks at your conscience. Either that, or you have the instincts of a bully, kicking those who are down and bleeding, or you are inspired by some missionary impulse. I mean, what do you care what we think? By all the signs we are approaching extinction.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:39 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
I don't control whether we have paragraph divisons or not. I would like to see them too. I could add them on my side -- but I'm not going to do it for every post; I don't have the time. I could do it for mine, as I have in the past; but that seems like cheating.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:54 PM By Grisha
How do contact the person who deals w/ these technical matters and ask him or her if it's possible?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:44 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, am I reading your post correctly? Not only does your software have underlining and boldface, but "flaming" font?! And, there is no need for you to prove your hetero-ness by posting any pictorial proofs ... you are believed. *** Now onto more grave matters: Ron W., you sound like your soulmate John K. in that you both have conspired to create your own language using common English words as a disguise. Is this a fact?
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:03 AM By RR
John K: Polls,shmolls! This poll must have been initiated by Awnold and the gays. If all you have is a stupid poll to try to prove what you do is acceptable, then you are doomed. Your supposed poll means nothing. Big deal if liberal parishes ATTEMPT to perform a gay whatever, it means nothing and NEVER will. Don't take too much comfort in your recliner yet. The bigoted old guard is NOT being replaced. Remember who this bigoted old guard is, God. HE will reign supreme. Attempt all you like. You WILL be defeated!
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:55 AM By Grisha
Christopher ~ To begin with, I would recommend the Paulists to anyone interested in joining or, especially, retuning to the Church regardless their sexual orientation. I'm not going to speculate on what a Paulist father *might* say to someone whose issues included homosexuality as it would move me toward practicing the kind of "self-commissioned, lay, internet ministry" I've criticized Mr. Matatics for and believe is very dangerous. I can, however, talk about my own experience and you (and John K.) can extrapolate if you’d like. I was inactive in the Church for over a decade. In '78 I experienced my second shooting incident. This one was a real firefight. I nearly got killed and my partner almost killed a suspect while getting me out of a bad position (all survived. God bless CN gas!) The next day I sought out the local priest who happened to be a Paulist. At first, I did almost all the talking, focusing on staying in a profession where it had come down to the kill or be killed twice in five years, the effect of shift work on my family etc. After awhile, we got down to my real theological issue; did I really believe in life after death? We talked about the scriptural basis of the Church’s teachings and he went over a bit of what non-Christian faiths teach. That led to the topic of taking the teachings of the church through faith while not parking our intellects at the church door. I don’t remember many more details, I do recall, however, being impressed that here was a man as intelligent and well read as any professor I’d ever studied under who fervently believed in an afterlife. I also got a lot of support in terms of reading material including the “Good News” translation of the Bible, Christ Among Us and a subscription to US Catholic and America. Anyway, that was the start of my journey. The journey of someone who has issues about the Church’s teachings on homosexuality might have similarities but would also be very different.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:53 AM By Ron W.
The Judaeo-Platonist schools such is in Alexandria, greatly influenced some early Christians, since they combined the authority of classical learning with a tradition of Old Testament scholarship (responsible for the Septuagint translation which most Christians used).For Christians, The Alexandrian rule had great influence in what was considered natural. In the third century Clement of Alexandria asserted that to have sex for any purpose other than to produce children is to violate nature.This concept was also taught by Philo to Platonist Jews. Any use of human sexuality, potential or actual, which did not produce legitimate offspring violated nature: all moral issues were subordinate to the primary duty of males to procreate. Celibacy was as unnatural as was homosexuality. Failure to divorce a barren wife was also unnatural as was masturbation.Unfortunately Church tradition of today has bought into these twisting of scripture and ignores true biblical research to find the truths of scripture.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:35 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
Thanks for the story of your "reversion." As I have said before, I think you basically have the will to be Catholic -- but the source of what I would deem your confusion on certain matters seems to be reading stuff like America and US Catholic. But, again, thanks for the account.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:36 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
As for the text layout in the comments, you may post your request with info@calcatholic.com.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:18 PM By Nedd
Let's try to clear up John K's willful misunderstanding of the California Constitution as well as his paralysis of Wm. Hamilton's interpretation on Monday. There is no confusion. Article 18, Sec. 1 & 2 provides the legislature two options to amend the Constitution, one being thru the legislature by 2/3rd vote, the other by convention. Article 18, Sec. 3 & 4 provides the electors (voters) two means to amend, one by initiative, the other by revision or amendment. There's no mention of the legislature in Sec. 3 & 4. The marriage proposition in November is said to be an amendment which falls under Sec. 4. Article 4, Sec. 1 says the legislature has the power to make laws but the people may alternatively do so thru initiative or referendum. Initiative, referendum or amendment are similar, though maybe inexact, terms but they all have one thing in common - the voters' majority voice reigns supreme. The California Secretary of State's office also recognizes this initiative as an amendment - http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm. It's open and shut. Hamilton, you can vote for traditional marriage in November. John K. apparently wants homosexual acts enshrined into law via a faux form of marriage which is not healthy for anyone. Voters have the right to reject such as good public policy.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:27 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, "Christ Among Us" is errant. I recognized this in my second year of Catholicism, before it was tossed out. But simply because it was a Paulist priest who aided you in a desparate spiritual time does not mean you owe your salvation or life to that priest or his order (although they do not call themselves an "order") -- you owe it all to God. "God is not a respecter of men", at least according to Jesus ... or maybe to Jesus through the mouth of St Paul ... hmn, could it have been St John ... whatever, they are all one. Point can be ramped up in my own experience: I was led to Christ by terrible sinners, but each advance brought me through the guidance of less terrible sinners. It is even a theme found in the arts, where some desparado defers to God in some charitable moment ... I think even Hemingway made this his most (to me) "glorious" moment when the foursome broke from the tree line and barreled down the slope charging through the cannonade from the tank on the opposite slope ... death was accepted so as to provide the escape of virtue and life. Perhaps it is time for you to move to the next stepping stone placed conveniently for you by your Savior. I always think of the image, the dynamic image, of Jacob's Ladder with servants of salvation climbing up and down.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:58 PM By Dr. Atwater
Nedd, the constitution can be “amended” by initiative but not “revised.” As the court stated in McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal.2d 330 (1948), the voters have “[no] power to initiate directly a revision of … the Constitution.” So the SOS office can recognize the initiative to be an amendment all it wants, and so can you, but if it requires a revision to make the proposed change effective rather than an amendment, then an amendment won't cut the mustard.
|
Posted Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:01 PM By Steve1
Ron W,
Your argument that the Sodomites were really the oppressors of homosexuals is truly laughable. If it were so, then God was unable to find 10 righteous, or as you define it "oppressed", people within the entire city. Can you have oppressors without the oppressed?
Homosexuals will use any baseless logic to validate their sinful behavior.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:53 AM By Fr. M.P.
John K, you told me that "you are more dangerous than the average criminal" on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:35 PM. No wine involved. Just look at your own biology and see how the organs do not fit together with other males. You use orifices not designed for such activity. Your very nature is male, and nature, to continue the species, requires a male and female to procreate children (along with the God you deny). I notice you also duck the incurable disease spreading questions - typical for those hardened in their unnatural behavior. Yes, NDE stands for near death experience. On youtube search the videos for keywords ["to hell and back" nde] and there is a nine part series on that (1.5 hours total watching time).
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 10:16 AM By Nedd
Dr. Atwater, since I don't live in California, you may be more familiar with that ruling than I am and I'll concede your point, however, I have to question whether the ruling was flawed and/or conceived via judicial activism since that's not what I read the Cal Constitution to say. It appears very clear to me that the Constitution can be amended by either lawmakers, via the 2/3rds vote or Constitutional convention. It also comes across rather clear that the voters have the option to such a process. The intent of the Cal Constitution seems to me to indicate voters can't make law or create amendments by getting handfuls of citizens together to say such should be law. There is a process - either thru the legislature or an initiative/referendum, whatever, whereby the people can get a certain number of signatures from the citizens to qualify for the ballot and a majority of the citizens approve of it at the ballot box. Maybe I'm not that legally savvy but amending or revising an initiative sounds the same to me. I'm guessing you're making this a matter of semantics but if not, perhaps you can clarify the differences. Thanks.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 1:54 PM By Dr. Atwater
Nedd, the state constitution of 1849 provided two scopes of change: “revision” and “amendment.” The former ("revision") refers to fundamental or sweeping change to the constitution or to the structure of state government. The latter ("amendment") refers to less significant change, “within the lines of the original instrument.” Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113 (1894). The 1879 state constitution retained the distinction between revision and amendment, and it still exists today. The constitution can be “amended” by initiative but not “revised” by initiative. The state Supreme Court has invalidated several initiatives because they were “revisory” in nature. Short of holding a constitutional convention, a revision requires a constitutional commission vote and then a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature before being voted upon by the people.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:08 PM By John K.
Christopher Zehnder: I'm going to try to cover all of your responses at once. So, let me get this straight. Age is an "accidental defect"? I think not. It is universally true that when a woman reaches a certain age she can no longer reproduce, yet we make no laws restricting marriage to those women who have yet to reach that age. We could very easily require a fertility test as a condition of obtaining a marriage license, as we currently do an HIV test (at least some places). Your historical argument is very weak. It basically holds that even though we as human beings are advancing exponentially each year and decade in technology and science and all sorts of other areas, our greater knowledge of the human condition is causing us to become LESS moral. By your logic, we should still have slavery and women should still be denied the vote, as that is historically what was done in this country. Bad policies by primitive societies do not gain validity just because they've always been done that way. It's funny how you people can never debate this issue on the merits. You make the conclusory statement that it would be a "lie" to convey the same dignity to gay relationships as straight ones. Why? Gays raise children, just like infertile straights do and just as well. Gays love each other just as well as straights. Gays are capable of operating within marriage the same way as straights are, taking into account that many straights are allowed to marry without producing biological children. I've made my case, now the burden is on you to provide some explanation on the merits as to why I am wrong as opposed to appealing to history and tradition. And sorry, this response got too long, so I shall continue onto another...
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:11 PM By John K.
Zehnder: I'm glad to hear you admit you are losing (indeed, it's inevitable), but the battle is far from over and gay people across the country and the world continue to suffer, and anything I can do to hasten the onset of true equality can help. That includes trying to reason with as many who disagree with me as possible. I'm not here to bully you, just to make you and others like you realize that all you are doing is simply hurting others for not good reason by voting for marriage bans and for people who would institute them.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:18 PM By John K.
I'm sorry, that one about the polls was directed to RR, not B.B. I misread.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:22 PM By John K.
Grisha: I'm sorry to hear that you've had to deal with that sort of stress in your life. I understand your need to question what happens after death considering. And don't get me wrong, if that works for you, great. If you truly, truly believe it, great. I just personally cannot objectively believe it at this point, even if I wanted to. And my only beef is with those who turn what should be a personal, liberating faith into a tool of oppression by forcing others to abide by the church's rules and doctrines whether they believe in them or not. That's what government bans on secular gay marriage does.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:40 PM By John K.
Nedd: You are COMPLETELY confusing different terms and different categories of terms. We've got two categories of terms. First, we've got distinct methods of creating laws (simple vote of legislature, citizens' initiative petition followed by majority enactment, referendum (referral from the legislature) followed by majority enactment, 2/3 vote from legislature followed by majority enactment, constitutional convention) (I may have missed one or two, but these are sufficient for our purposes). Then we've got distinct types of laws (simple legislation or statute, constitutional amendment, constitutional revision). Article 18, Section 1 allows for amendments or revisions to the constitution by 2/3 majority of legislature followed by majority enactment by the people. The proposal that will be voted on in November does not fall into this category because it was not referred by the legislature. Article 18 Section 2 allows 2/3 of the legislature followed by majority enactment by the people to call a constitutional convention to amend or revise the constitution. November's proposal does not fall into this category either, obviously, because it is not calling for a convention and was not referred by the legislature.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:42 PM By John K.
Article 18 Section 3 provides that an AMENDMENT, but not a REVISION (as that word is left out of this section) may be made by initiative petition followed by majority enactment by the people. November's proposal falls under the initiative category, but my argument was that it is not an amendment, but rather a revision, meaning it does not fall under this category because it does not meet both criteria (initiative and amendment as opposed to revision). Article 18 Section 4 is a provision that applies to the entire rest of Article 18, and simply provides that no matter how the proposal get to the people, whether by 2/3 vote pursuant to section 1 or by initiative pursuant to section 3, it must be approved by a majority of the voters. The word "revision" appears in this section because it covers the whole rest of Article 18, i.e. a revision referred for ratification by the people pursuant to section 1 must be approved by a majority and an amendment pursuant to section 3 must be approved by a majority. Section 4 does not mean that a REVISION can be made by initiative followed by approval by a majority. That combination does not exist in Article 18.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:51 PM By John K.
Now, the people passed prop 22 by initiative in 2000, but that was neither an amendment nor a revision; it was simply a regular piece of legislation or a statute. It is almost just like any statute passed by a majority of the legislature and signed by the governor except that it is treated with slightly higher deference in that the legislature cannot repel it without referring the repeal to the people for a vote. This type of regular statute made by voter initiative is what Article 4 section 1 is referring to; it says nothing about making revisions to the constitution, which is what I argue the November provision would be. You said, "the marriage proposal is said to be an amendment, which falls under [Article 18], section 4." The problem is, I didn't say it was an amendment; I said it was a revision. You can argue that distinction with me, but that is not what you limited your criticism of my argument to. The point is, the voter's majority voice does not reign supreme if they wish to revise (as opposed to amend) the constitution without referral from the legislature. They simply cannot do it constitutionally. The terms amendment and revision are NOT inexact terms; they have very distinct meanings under California law. And you have wholly demonstrated that you do not understand those distinctions.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 7:54 PM By John K.
Again, if you don't believe me, I refer you to McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision." Also, Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 for case law on the subject. This is far from and open and shut case free from confusion. I will tell you the same thing I told Wm., never fool yourself into thinking constitutional law is open and shut.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 8:06 PM By John K.
Fr. M.P.: My apologies for transitioning from a sentence obviously directed to you to a sentence I meant to expand to "you" as in any hypothetical person. I have no reason to believe you personally would physically attack a gay person for being gay, but IF you (or anyone else) did, you would be more dangerous than the guy who attacks a person because of a specific personal grudge. In the latter case, the offender is unlikely to offend again. In the former, the offender has a whole society filled with potential victims. That was my point; it wasn't referring to you. Now, to move on, as I said to you or someone else before, I can assure you from personal experience that my organs fit together with other males. We can debate whether the orifices I use were designed for such activity (or indeed, whether they were "designed" at all), but that doesn't change the fact that they fit together, and they fit together in such a way as to be very pleasurable (if it weren't pleasurable or possible, we wouldn't do it, now would we?). The purpose of sex is not JUST to continue the species, so I'm not concerned that my sex doesn't do that. What question about incurable disease did I duck? If I did, it was an oversight because of all the different topics and posts here. But as far as disease goes, wouldn't encouraging gays to get married help slow the spread of such diseases? Monogamous gays don't spread disease. Wouldn't you admit that gays will keep having sex whether you like it or not, and the least you can do is encourage them to have monogamous sex by encouraging them to get married? This is where your disease argument breaks down. If you were truly worried about disease, you would be in favor of gay marriage. No, your disease argument is just another front for your religious motivations, that's why the arguments don't make sense together. I will look up the youtube video when I get a chance, and try to give you my thoughts on it at some point.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 8:17 PM By John K.
Nedd: you asked Dr. Atwater for clarification on the amendment versus revision question. I hope my explanation has helped. There is a big difference, and it is not just a matter of semantics. An amendment simply changes some minor point in the constitution or clarifies something rather small. A revision either changes the structure of government itself or affects a fundamental constitutional doctrine. The November proposal would make an equal protection exception for gays, which is antithetical to the very concept of equal protection, a fundamental constitutional doctrine. It would also take the fundamental right to marriage away from gays. Since the California Supreme Court (unlike the Oregon Supreme Court, which recently ruled a similar amendment in that state was an amendment as opposed to a revision) just last month found that equal protection required that the fundamental right of marriage applied to gays, it is very likely the California Court will find that this proposal is a revision. Again, the Oregon decision can simply be read to mean that the Oregon Court disagreed with the Cali Court that equal protection or the fundamental right to marriage even applied to gays. Obviously then, the proposal wouldn't affect those doctrines because those doctrines don't apply in Oregon. However, since they have already been found to apply in Cali, the situation there is much different, and it is much more likely the proposal will be held to be a revision.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 9:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
The position of John K. is nothing but deception; it's like the devil trying to put himself together with Jesus, or homosexualism with historical legitimacy.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 11:00 PM By Steve1
John K & Atwater:
At the time it was written, the Marriage Amendment passed the requirement that it meet all criteria for constitutionality. If activist judges want to change the law, so be it, but the Marriage Amendment has been certified. If the Marriage Amendment passes, which it likely will, you can expect an immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, which will issue a stay (meaning gay marriage will continue) until it resolves the matter. You can expect the final verdict to be given by the US Supreme Court. When this is finally over, probably around 2011, gay marriage certificates will most likely not be worth the paper they are written on.
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2008 11:47 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K,
Age is an accidental defect because, if a woman is old or sick or suffering from some defect that makes her incapable of bearing children, she is still a woman. She is the kind of thing that bears progeny. If she cannot, it is not in the fact of her being a woman that she is incapable of bearing a child but on account of some condition that does not change what she fundamentally is. The defect is accidental, not essential. A man is not capable of bearing a child because of what he fundamentally is, not simply on account of some other condition. Likewise, the sexual union of a man and a woman is by its fundamental character productive of offspring; if it does not happen in this case or that, it is because of some hindrance or defect;the fundamental character of the union remains unchanged. We don't say, for instance, that an apple tree is not an apple tree if on account of some disease it does not bear apples. Likewise, the sexual union of man and woman is the kind of thing productive of offspring. The union of a man and a man is not, because by its very nature cannot produce offspring. My appeal to history was to indicate that the word "marriage" means a certain kind of union. That is, marriage has a definition. To refute this, you would have to argue that this is not the definition of marriage. Or you would have to argue that the same word can refer to two very different kinds of unions. To do this, you would be changing the definition of marriage, but that would be like including circles under the designation "triangle." One would think you would have to give a good reason to do either -- a reason that would make sense of the juxtaposition of two contrary concepts, not just one that is convenient.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:08 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. K,
It seems clear that our difference lies not specifically with marriage but is far more fundamental. I think there is purpose in nature, you don't, or, at least, you doubt it. If we don't agree on this level, there is no purpose for further discussion. Everything turns on the question, is there purpose in nature?
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:13 AM By Grisha
Christopher and John K,: - Would either or both of you be open to the following theoretical compromise 1) Marriage is considered by all to be only a union of a man and a woman. 3) The states may institute civil unions (such as AB 205) here in California which grants gay couples the security straight couples have in marriage. 4) Religious organizations would be protected by consonance clauses from providing benefits in civil unions (but NOT from employment discrimination laws) and (Here's the kicker) 5) the Federal government recognizes civil unions for the same proposes as it does marriage (My cousin and his partner file joint tax returns, if my friend Sara the world traveler falls in love with ""Natasha" she can bring her to the US just she could as if she became engaged to "Boris", the lesbian FBI Agent in SF can put her partner on her health insurance just like the gay SFPD officer she works next to on the JTTF can, etc. etc.) Note that I say "theoretical because I think organizational positions have hardened to a point we're beyond such a reasonable solution. So guys, what do you say?
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:58 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
The differences between John K. and myself are not on the level of policy or laws. They are on the level of principle. He thinks homosexual activity is normal and good. I think it is unnatural and immoral. Between those two principles there is no hope of compromise. A second principle to which I hold is that purpose of law is to help direct citizens to virtue. Therefore any law that condones or honors immoral behavior with privileges and rights or treats immoral acts as if they are normal and acceptable violates the very purpose for which law exists. From the perspective of the principles I espouse, the solution you suggest is not reasonable. You seem to me a man devoted to principles of balance and calm, of fair play and striking the mean; yours is the liberal democratic ideal. This ideal fails, however, because it does not see that sometimes there are irreconcilable differences and that sometimes even peace has to give way to the maintenance of truth and good. For not all peace is good; there is, remember, the peace of the grave, which is where our society is tending by rejecting integral virture, the life of man as man.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:10 PM By Grisha
Christopher - Thank you. John K., any thoughts?
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:08 PM By John K.
Sillasen: My position is logicla reality. Your religious position is delusion.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:17 PM By John K.
Steve1: First of all, the marriage amendment has not yet passed; it only got past the first couple of steps toward passage, which means it is not law. So, if you're suggesting that the fact that it will be a revision when actually ratified by the people doesn't matter because it was only an amendment when the signatures were gathered and when it was certified, I don't think the California Supreme Court is going to buy that logic. If it is a revision when completely passed, it's a revision. The state Constitution cannot be revised by initiative. P.S. Almost certainly, neither the 9th circuit nor the US Supreme Court will be involved in this case. These are all provisions of the California Constitution that are in play here. Federal law is not implicated, so federal courts have no jurisdiction. There is no federal right to amend state constitutions by initiative. Unless the initative is passed and then overturned by the California Supreme Court, and then proponents of the initiative try to appeal to the 9th circuit on some theory that federal law was violated (which I cannot imagine at this point; if you've got some idea how overturning the amendment would violate federal law, I'd be interested to hear), the California Supreme Court will be the final word on this issue.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:25 PM By John K .
If a woman is beyond menopause, she is NOT the "kind of thing that bears progeny." In fact, we know she will never be that kind of thing again. Why do we allow her to get married? As some sort of compensation for once being able to bear children, even though she can't anymore? You're grasping at straws here. As far as the word marriage goes, I'm arguing that it can refer to several slightly different but substantially similar relationships. It can refer to the union of a white man and white woman. It can refer to the union of a black man and white woman. It can refer to the union of a black man and black man. You can think of dozens of different combinations, however the relationships are substantially the same. Usually sexual in nature, loving, possibly carrying the intention to raise children together whether biological or adopted. You focus on a distinction without a difference. Your appletree anaology breaks down because I'm not saying an infertile woman is no longer a woman. I'm just saying she is no longer the kind of woman that can enter into a marriage, if your definition of marriage is a union of two people capable of bearing children. In your example, the appletree would still be an appletree, but the farmer would not treat it as though it could bear apples if it couldn't (like you want to treat infertile women as if they can bear children by letting them into a marriage, which you define by the participants' ability to bear children).
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:27 PM By John K.
Zehnder: I don't know if there is a purpose in nature. If there is, I certainly don't think we humans know what it is at this point. It could be that everyone creates his or her own purpose. Almost certainly, the purpose is not to worship the Catholic God.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:28 PM By John K.
By the way, Zehnder, I had stopped reading your last post right before the last couple of sentences: I have a good reason to include gays in marriage: That there is no good reason not to.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:37 PM By John K.
Grisha: In the short term I would love the compromise, but in the end, the only reason for the distinction is to continue to treat gays differently (as inferior). Christopher is right about our differences on principle. He is unreasonable. His only basis for his feelings are his dogmatic beliefs in religion that have been drilled into his head probably since he was a little boy, and he knows nothing else. The fact is, there is no logical reason to deny gays the marriage relationship. If there was some logical reason for the civil union compromise, I'd be all for it permanently. However, in the absence of such a reason I cannot submit to bigotry.
|
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2008 10:33 PM By Steve1
John K,
When did I ever say the Marriage Amendment was state law? Your assesment that the matter will untimately be resolved by the California Supreme Court is erronious, in my opinion. Since California does not have a residency requirement for marriage licenses, it is in fact "exporting" gay marriage license to other states, thereby making it a federal matter of constitutionality. It is for this reason that the Attorney General's from different 8 states filed Amicus Curie Briefs asking the court to postpone its ruling until after the November elections .
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:21 AM By BJ
We accept the Bible as is. If certain minorities find the contents 'religious superstition' then they should have the guts to admit publicly and without prevarication that they are `rejecting the Word of God'. And they need to find a quiet space to consider the consequences of their reality. Religious teachings cannot be adapted to accomodate fashionable, secularist, militant, reinerpretations or trends.Sorry JK, and others. The `supreme` court and word games mean nothing in the long run whatever their PC decisions.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:31 AM By John K.
Steve1: It is true that it is more likely that a SEPARATE case from couples from OTHER STATES will involve federal questions. I would point out though that couples who got married in Mass. and moved to other states over the past 5 years could have brought the same suits, and if any did, it didn't make it to the Supreme Court. Still, a lot more couples now so it's more likely, I admit. However, that's not what I was talking about and that's not what it seemed you were talking about in your last post. You wrote "If the Marriage Amendment passes, which it likely will, you can expect an immediate appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, which will issue a stay (meaning gay marriage will continue) until it resolves the matter. You can expect the final verdict to be given by the US Supreme Court. When this is finally over, probably around 2011, gay marriage certificates will most likely not be worth the paper they are written on." My point was, if the marriage amendment passes and then the California Supreme Court strikes it down as being a revision which can't be made by initiative, that issue is over. It can't be appealed to the federal courts. Any couples living in California will continue to be recognized no matter what a future decision by the US Supreme Court about recognizing the marriages out-of-state brings. Any federal suit will not "stay" the marriages of people living in California. And, just in case it wasn't clear, new couples in California will continue to be able to get married even if the US Supreme Court says other states don't have to recognize them under the scenario I gave (where the California Court strikes down the amendment).
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:23 PM By Maria C
John K the law was broken because as I remember a while back we voted on Prop.22, I believe that is what is was, to vote that marraige was between one man and one woman, and now your agenda has gone fourth and broke the will of the people and the way marraige has always been and decided to vote on your personal lifestyle. So yes the homosexuals and those evil judges broke the law and constitution! Not to mention the natural design in which God created us all! You may have this law now in affect for gay marraige but it will never be accepted in God's eye, and you may live this lifestyle in your comfort and selfish ways now but in the afterlife, you will have to answer to a higher power. Whether you agree or not with me now and the faithful but at your death bed, I hope for your souls sake that you work up your salvation with fear and tremebling. Their is a real judge, much higher than any, God's love and justice will be served especially when there are children involved who are being scandelized with such secular laws.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 10:57 PM By John K.
BJ: OK, I will take you up on your offer. I'm publically admitting that I reject the Bible as the word of God. Consequently, I'm unimpressed with the rest of your argument.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 11:03 PM By John K.
Maria C: When are you people going to get this through your head. The Court is the entity called upon to interpret the Constitution. Not Maria C. Just because Maria C. says the constitution was violated, doesn't make it so. The Court says precisely the opposite: that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. Thus, it is the responsibility and duty of the Court to strike it down. That's how our system works. Don't cry "will of the people" if you don't understand that the "will of the people" does not always rule. We do not live in a pure democracy; we live in a constitutional democracy. That means, if the will of the people does not comport with the constitution, which is the ultimate will of the people, then the current will of the people does not rule. Moving on, I'm not concerned with what is accepted in God's eye because God does not exist. Same goes for the afterlife. It's a nice thought, and it's understandable why we humans would go to such pains to find some sort of noble purpose to our existence, but that's just our (your)arrogance at work.
|
Posted Friday, July 04, 2008 11:49 PM By Steve1
John K: Any commodity that crosses state lines comes under federal jurisdiction. If a California Supreme Court ruling allows gay marriage license to cross state lines, then the ruling can be disputed in federal court. The residency requirement is not being contested.
Prop 22 was never declared unconstitutional. As a statue, it is considered a 'lesser law'.
GK Chesterton said it best "a person who does not believe in God will believe anything"
|
Posted Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:46 PM By John K.
Steve1: What are you smoking? Prop 22 was absolutely declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. As to the federal jurisdiction, yes, as I said, if an out-of-state couple sues their state to have their California marriage recognized in their home state, that implicates federal law. However, no matter what happens, the federal courts will NOT NOT NOT have the power to reinstitute a gay marriage ban WITHIN California. Separately, if the ban passes in November, yes, gay rights groups could appeal to the federal courts, but on virtually no different grounds than they could have before or that gay rights groups in any other state could have before. Perhaps if the ban was applied retroactively there would be new issues of law implicated, but the argument is basically the same: gay marriage bans violate the federal constitution. That claim could have always been brought, but it hasn't (at least it hasn't made it to the Supreme Court). Now, if the ban passes, the California gay rights groups and gay couples will certainly exhaust their state remedies before going federal, as it is very uncertain (if not unlikely) that gay people will get a positive result at the federal level (yes, I admit that). However, none of this changes my original position that the particular California case that struck down the statutory ban as well as Prop. 22 is over. The California Supreme Court had the final word. Absent an amendment passing in November, no federal court will be able to undo those marriages or stop future marriages within California. Out-of-state couples are a completely different matter. GK Chesterton has things a little backwards. It should read "a person who is capable of believing in God is capable of believing anything." On a side note, I've got this bridge for sale if you're interested, Steve.
|
Posted Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:47 PM By John K.
Small clarification: If the initative passes in november, gay rights groups can file a federal lawsuit to invalidate it. I wrote that they could appeal to the federal courts, but that was slightly inaccurate as the initiative would not have been a court decision, and thus could not be "appealed." A new lawsuit would have to be started.
|
Posted Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:10 AM By John K.
And by the way, the state-level options that gay rights organizations and gay couples have include waiting a year or two and getting the issue back on the ballot again to be re-voted on, which can be done over and over again by either side under the California Constitution. In all likelihood, if this initiative passes it will be very close, and make no mistake, the tide is turning against anti-gay bigotry. Even if the anti-gay crowd still happens to have a slim majority, that majority will fade very soon. Since a re-vote in California a year or two down the road would be a much better option, a federal lawsuit by gay couples following the passing of the initiative in November seems increasingly unlikely.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:06 AM By Steve1
John K: Read the California Constitution - article II, section 10, subdivision (c): only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22. Same-sex “marriage” remains, therefore, illegal. The court is not constitutionally permitted to enforce its opinion. The argument truly is whether Governor Schwarzenegger possesses the constitutional authority to authorize changes to the marriage certificates. I do not believe he does (my opinion), and to this day he has not been held responsible for his actions.
The rest of my points were not addressed, you simply went on an incoherent ramble.
Even though you do not believe in Hell, I sincerely hope you do not end up there.
|
Posted Friday, July 11, 2008 5:03 PM By John K.
I responded to Steve1's last comment a few days ago, but it has not yet been approved, and I'm not going to write it all out again. Suffice it to say that the section you cite says NOTHING about a restriction upon the Court when the people pass an unconstitutional initiative statute. Section 10 subdivision (c) only restricts the LEGISLATURE from overruling a voter initiative.
|
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 11:12 PM By Steve1
John K:
1. the Court cannot restrict any initiative.
2. the people cannot pass any unconstitutional initiatives - all initiatives must pass constitutionality criteria before they are accepted and certified as an initiative by the Attorney General.
3. laws can only be created or revoked by the Legislature or voter initiative.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:38 PM By John K.
Steve1: Do you have absolutely no concept of the role of the judiciary?? 1. If the voters pass an unconstitutional STATUTE initiative, which Prop. 22 was, then the Court can absolutely overturn it. If the people pass a constitutional AMENDMENT initiative, the court can't overturn it if it is truly an AMENDMENT. However, if the proposal amounts to a REVISION, it cannot be enacted through initiative. And the COURT, not the attorney general, gets to decide whether the proposal amounts to an amendment or an iniatiative. That's what the court does, it interprets laws. 2. The attorney general is the initiatal gatekeeper to make sure the procedures for getting the thing on the ballot are followed, but the ultimate question of interpreting the substance of the law is the job of the COURT. Now, I'm not saying that this current proposal will necessarily be found to be a revision as opposed to an amendment (although I think the argument that it is a revision is very strong). However, in any event, that decision will be made by the COURT. 3. Laws can only be created by the legislature or by voter initiative (although, not ALL laws can be created by initiative, i.e. constitutional revisions). However, if a regular statute is passed by the legislature or by the people through initiative, the Court definitely has the power to revoke that law, so that part of your assertion 3 is simply not correct. You may wish things were as you state them, but it's just not the case. You really need to get this straight before you come in here and try to tell me, a third-year law student, how the law works.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:48 PM By John K.
Apparently today the California Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on gay rights groups' petition saying that the initiative was a revision. The Court did not give a reason for declining to take up the case. It's possible I guess that the issue could be re-presented to the Court after the initiative passes (if it passes), but I'm not sure about that. Perhaps the Court just thought it would cause too much of an uproar now to not let the people vote on the issue and that further confrontation could be avoided completely if the initiative fails. In any event, none of this changes what I've been saying all along that in the event that the proposal were a revision, it could not be enacted by initiative. Today's decision doesn't really even answer the question of whether it constitutes a revision, as the petition could have simply been denied on procedural grounds (again, we don't know since the Court didn't say). And again, the Court will very likely be asked to rule specifically on the question of whether the proposal constitutes a revision or an amendment in the event that it passes. If it rules without comment again, that can be taken as implying that it doesn't constitute a revision, which I never said was a certainty. However, revisions still cannot be made by initiative, and the only reason this one would be allowed to stand is because it's ruled not to be a revision. Sorry, that was very rambling, but the point stands.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:39 PM By Steve1
You may find it amazing that California Family Code section 308.5 still contains the language instituted by Prop 22. Unless we allow unconstitutional initiatives to remain listed as part of California Law, I would suggest you, as a third-year law student, enlighten our leaders in Sacramento.
Is it possible that your non-belief in Hell or the devil could be incorrect?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:12 PM By John K.
Laws that have been declared unconstitutional remain on the books ALL of the time, sir. Just a couple of years ago, if I'm not mistaken, Alabama or Arkansas or some state legislature down there was considering taking a school segregation law off the books that had remained there from pre-Brown v. Board days. I actually think the repeal effort failed! I have to look this up now and get back to you with the exact details because I could be wrong. However, make no mistake that unconstitutional laws remain on the books all of the time. If you're suggesting that somehow the Prop. 22 language is sitll enforceable, I don't suggest your hold your breath.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:40 PM By John K.
I'm not sure if the link I sent is going to come up, but if it doesn't, search for "Still on the Books: Jim Crow" with the quotes in google. It's the first one.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:16 PM By Steve1
John K, Although this is not a form for legal discussions, I shall try again. All of these points have already been given in my previous posts. Prop 22 is still listed in the Family Code because it is still California Law. The California Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22, but does not have any power to enforce its decision. All California counties have complied with the Court's ruling, including Kern county's recent vote by its Board of Supervisors to uphold the Court's decision. However, Kern county could just as easily vote against issuing gay marriage license in the future and would have been within the law to do so. They best way to "win" is to have the law repealed. The sarcasm for you to inform our leaders in Sacramento of this "unconstitutional" law was that they cannot repeal Prop 22, only another initiative can. As a third-year law student, do you find any of these statements incorrect? On a side note, thankfully nearly all of the Jim Crow laws have been repealed. Of the few that remain on the books, to this day they remain a source of pain and horror. Finally, have you ever checked out Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church? It surely cannot hurt you, and may draw you closer to Christ.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 3:54 PM By John K.
Yes, I find the notion of one branch igoring a legal order by another branch pursuant to the separation of powers to be most incorrect. Of course they could technically do it. The governor could order the State National Guard to the Supreme Courthouse to kill the justices and declare himself the emperor of the state. That's not how the system works. The Court interprets the law and the executive abides by the decision. If the people don't like it, they try to change it through the amendment process. However, you advocating counties ignoring the Court ruling is advocating anti-American anarchy. I can't say I expect much more from you though. By the way, the governor of Arkansas tried to ignore the Brown v. Board decision of the US Supreme Court. President Eisenhower sent the Army down there to escort the black students into their newly integrated school. Yes, anyone can ignore the law if they want. However, following the law means following the Court decision whether you like it or not. And no, I haven't read Courage, and I'm not interested, but thank you anyway.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|