The California State Supreme Court decided yesterday that the millennia-old understanding of what marriage is, isn’t.
California’s Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
When the debate on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage was in full swing here in Georgia, those against the measure argued that we already had a law in Georgia making same-sex marriage illegal. They said that, therefore, we didn’t need to change the constitution. But the Left in this country has decided to use the judiciary to do an end-run around when they generally can’t get past the people or their representatives, and then they complain when they’re met on that battlefield.
The California situation is a bit more convoluted. The article gives us that history.
Thursday’s ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.
In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.
A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.
However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.
In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.
But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state’s desire to “carry out the expressed wishes of a majority” was sufficient to preserve the existing law.
California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state’s court system to decide on.
So in summary; the people said they didn’t want same-sex marriage, their alleged “representatives” decided they did want it, the governor stopped it, tossed it to the judiciary, and the judiciary ruled successively for it, against it, and now for it again.
And they’re calling this potentially historic.
Legal analysts say Thursday’s court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court’s history of landmark rulings.
Sorry, but this highly politicized process doesn’t sound like any sort of resounding history. Leon Wolf at Redstate picked out the money quote from the decision, and finds that the court didn’t really rule on constitutional grounds at all!
And, in fact, it ain’t over yet. Over a million signatures have already been collected to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. If this gets on the ballot, given the voting history, it’s sure to pass. Expect histrionics from opponents.
And remember what this issue did in 2004 for George W. Bush. It brought voters out in droves to vote on this issue, and while there were in the booth, most pulled the lever for Bush. Could this put California in play for McCain?
[tags]California,homosexuality,same-sex marriage,California State Supreme Court,Arnold Schwarzenegger,Georgia,constitutional amendment,George W. Bush,John McCain[/tags]
Townhall.com puts out, among many other things, a one-minute daily commentary by one of its contributors. This past Monday’s one was done by Michael Medved discussed the rising tide in the world as expressed by more pro-American leaders in countries such as Germany, England, Canada, Italy, Ukraine, France and others. (Sorry, no transcript, but it’s only 60 seconds to listen to.)
This seems to turn on its head the idea that our standing in the world, because of George W. Bush, is in decline. Indeed at this moment in time it appears to be on the rise. While those folks can’t vote in our elections, it will take away one of the Democrats’ talking points.
[tags]Townhall.com,Michael Medved,post-American,George W. Bush[/tags]
Yesterday was a big news day with two unrelated events occurring that will each have an impact on this fall’s elections. While on the surface the two may seem unrelated both spell trouble for Democrats.
President Bush, speaking at The Knesset in Israel, used the opportunity to launch an unmerited attack against Senator Barack Obama. At least, that’s what Senator Obama, aided and abetted by the left-leaning media, would like voters to believe. Here’s the paragraph that got Democrats’ collective undies in a bunch from the transcript of the speech: Read the rest of this entry
I realize the above news clip will not please my Roman Catholic readers, thus I hope they’ll further forgive me for the following by Fr Chrysostom MacDonnell, taken from “An Orthodox view of Church History” …
A few years ago I met an Anglican clergyman who was married to a Greek Orthodox lady. They once went to Greece for a holiday and visited her home village. Naturally, she introduced her Anglican husband to the local Papas (the Greek Orthodox parish priest,) who spoke a little English. At the time there was a little old Greek lady standing beside them who asked the Greek priest who this visitor was.
“He’s an Anglican Christian,” the priest responded in Greek.
“What’s an Anglican?” the old lady inquired.
“They’re Protestants,” replied the priest. “You know, like Roman Catholics.”
From Orthodoxie.
I heard Hugh Hewitt talk about the organization "Caring for China" which is helping in the relief effort following the massive earthquake there. They are currently taking donations.
In the meantime, while the government of Myanmar is blocking or hampering aid efforts, the folks from The Salvation Army are providing meals from their own cupboards to the needy there. If you’d like to donate to them, click here.
(And I’m not sure whether it should be routed through the Self-Delusion Agency or Committee on Unwarranted Optimism…)
Bob Barr has just announced his candidacy for President on the LIbertarian ticket.
“My name is Bob Barr and I’m a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America,” he told a small room of reporters, pre-empting them by raising the obvious question himself: “You might say Bob Barr, why are you running for president?”
[…]
“Look, I’m in it to win it,” said Barr. “I’m not getting in this race to make a point. … I’m not getting into this race to be a spoiler — I’ve got better things to do.”
Well, apparently not.
This is the counterbalance to Ralph Nader that, I’m sure, Democrats have been waiting for. But Barr, while he has name recognition going for him, is dropping another name that may make some folks wary of voting for him.
remains a candidate for president even though Sen. John McCain has surpassed the minimum number of delegates to win the nomination.
"Ron Paul tapped into a great deal of that dissatisfaction and that awareness," Barr said on the website. "Unfortunately, working through the Republican party structure, it became impossible for him to really move forward with his movement. But we have to have … a rallying point out there to harness that energy, that freedom, in this election cycle."
Of course, that name could also tap into a constituency that has been trying to "revolt" against the presumptive nominee, to little or no avail. My hunch (and that’s all it is) is that Barr could indeed become a real spoiler for McCain if he can successfully get the Paul supporters on his side. For now, they’re rather busy, so the extent of this support will probably only be known after the Republican convention.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article notes that the Libertarian candidate in 2004 got a little over 3% of the vote with no name recognition. (Anyone know who Michael Badnarik is?) Barr could easily do better.
Recently, I noted a discussion about homosexuality and other things which didn’t get a response (in all fairness I did get a lively one here). I’d like to return to the idea of repugnance and ethics. Consider the following two examples:
Questioning and interrogation in the next 10 years takes a pharmaceutical turn with the perfection and development of a drug which prevented the transference of short term to long term memory. Coupled with the refinements on the early infamous waterboarding which enabled technicians to trigger primal basic primitive organic fears every person held to break the conscious will. In part these refinements included the monitoring method which insured that no organic damage whatsoever would be incurred by the subject. Within 6-8 hours after questioning the subject had no physical or biological/mental memory of the questioning. From the point of view of the subject, it never occurred. Because of this factor this questioning is now viewed as humane.
This is wrong. It is repugnant and evil. But why? Repugnance is not the reason why it is wrong. It is a cue that there is a problem here. What exactly is wrong with it? In that prior post, I noted that a consequentialist would/should have no problem with either. In fact, a utilitarian argument would, I’d think, encourage and applaud this in a lot of cases not just involving National security but those involving, quite likely, an ever expanding list of crimes for which accurate interrogation of a hostile witness is deemed necessary to get to the truth.
Biblical ethics would, however, reject both. The essential problem with this method is that it rejects the dignity of man. Torture is not wrong because it inflicts pain, because we remember it, or because it is dehumanizing for the practitioner. It is wrong because it strips man of dignity.
Cross posted @Pseudo-Polymath.
In a discussion, I can’t locate right now, I accused Dan Trabue of equating Jesus message with class warfare. Now we have some disagreements, but that accusation was and is unfair and wrong … and I apologize.
Mr Trabue is far more comfortable with Marxist Liberation theology than is healthy for anyone, err, than I. Particularly seeing as how I think, and I think I can support, the idea that Marxism is inextricably linked with genocide. But that is no reason to connect Mr Trabue to a line of thinking that link Jesus teachings on charity to the poor, via Liberation theology to Marxism and thereby conclude that Mr Trabue thinks that Jesus commends class warfare. So, no I don’t believe that Mr Trabue thinks that the outworking of Jesus theology is Holodomor.
Mr Traube holds his beliefs out (see comment 10 in the above linked item) for us all to review so we might examine our differences. I’m going to list these items and remark on some of them in the hopes of exploring in a gracious way, our differences.
1. We are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus. Not by works.
Now a lot of theological fire is held in abeyance in this statement. Catholics affirm it, yet they continue by noting that faith without works is dead … so by logical inference works are required as well, but the works don’t save us, Christ does. Works are the evidence of our faith. Paul also notes works without faith avail us not in Romans.
2. We are not saved merely by believing in Jesus (”yeah, he was a good guy, son of God, that’s all cool”) – even the demons believe, we’re told – but by believing in Jesus and his teachings, the Way he told us to live. By embracing that as the Right and Good Way, by asking for forgiveness when we get it wrong and trusting in God to help us follow in those steps.
Sacramental efficacy? Baptism into life, “all who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ” is sung at times in Orthodox liturgy. Fasting, prayer, confession, repentance, charity, and the liturgy are the ways in which we follow that way. We don’t ask forgiveness “when we get it wrong” because we always get it wrong. We must pray continually, ask forgiveness continually, etc.
4. Because we’re flawed humans, we don’t always get it right. Sometimes we misunderstand the Bible. Sometimes, our reasoning is off. Thankfully, we are saved by God’s Grace.
What has been accepted by Ecumenical council and received by the Church catholic are how we judge the correctness of our interpretation. See also St. John Cassian on discernment transmitting the wisdom of the Desert.
5. The Bible has clear teachings – consistently throughout the whole of the Bible – about wealth and poverty. To ignore them is foolishness
I agree. I just think the teachings on our attitude toward God, our repentance are more important. That is the crux of our argument.
6. One of the consistent gists of biblical teachings on wealth and poverty is that God is especially concerned for the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. God clearly loves us all, but consistently throughout the Bible, God says, “woe to those who’d mistreat the poor.” God never in all of the Bible says such about the rich, the powerful and the mainstream. There are lessons to be learned there.
“woe to those who’d mistreat the poor”? Where? Just curious. On the “never says that about the rich” I don’t know what is meant by that. St. John Chrysostom taught that the rich should help the poor as part of charity and the poor for their part in charity should pray for the rich. I think that is right.
7. The lesson, though, isn’t that God is a class warrior or a mere marxist – playing the rich against the poor. Again, God loves us all. Rich and poor. God wants what’s best for us all.
“God wants what’s best for us all.” Which is that we are holy, priestly, God-fearing people.
8. This world is a world of abundance and plenty, with plenty for all – providing that some don’t overconsume resources and especially that they don’t do so by “false scales,” “buying land upon land,” etc. i.e., providing that people don’t oppress others by systems or methods that are designed to take advantage of people to one’s own benefit.
?! See my prior post.
9. Both Marxism and capitalism are flawed human constructs – ways of dealing with matters of economy. Neither is perfect and, in fact, both have quite potentially large flaws. My personal inclination is towards a regulated capitalism. I think Marxism is difficult to pull off well on the large scale.
Marxism is evil incarnate. Slavoj Zizek writes that Lenin is to Marx and Marxism and Paul is to Christ and Christianity. You cannot have one without the other. Marxism implies genocide. Marxism was “pulled off” just fine by Mao and Lenin. The result speaks for itself.
10. Because I recognize the reality of the large number of verses dealing with wealth and poverty, because I point out that James said, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” or that Jesus said, “it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom,” doesn’t mean much beyond that I’m pointing them out and that I believe that what Jesus and James and the prophets and all the other writers of the Bible had to say is important.
I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing your comfort level with Marxism and your theological elevation of poverty/charity in the Gospel.
Dan Trabue has been burning the midnight oil, frequently commenting on a number of mine and Doug’s posts recently. In this, he recently denounces conservative ecological and stewardship. This is insulting and incorrect. I am as conservative as anyone. I also:
And … to boot, I don’t buy one bit of the global warming snake oil Mr Gore and his minions are selling. But I find the contention that conservative=profligate consumer insulting and incorrect. Recall the recent comparisons of Mr Gore’s and our Presidents personal dwellings and their environmental impact. Also note, liberal Hollywood which is one of the hot beds of liberal activism and expression is also far more profligate in consumption than virtually anywhere else on the planet.
Liberals seize the high ground on conservation by talking the talk. But far too often, they don’t want to walk they but they do want, by dint of force and regulation, to get the other guy to do it for them.
A woman in southern Israel was killed by a Qassam rocket today.
A 70-year-old Israeli woman was killed early Monday evening from a Palestinian Qassam rocket which crashed into the backyard of a residential home in Yesha – a small community belonging to the Eshkol Regional Council.
Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Someone ring up Jimmy Carter and see if we can’t get him to stay a while in Yesha in the interest of the promotion of peace. Worked in Sderot (for as long as he was there).
Hat tip and other events of the day in Israel from Meryl Yourish.
UPDATE: Another post on Yourish.com by Soccerdad, notes that Carter was reached for comment. Unfortunately, it was "content free".
[tags]Middle East,Israel,Islamic Jihad,Jimmy Carter[/tags]
Help Build Houses and Hope with Habitat for Humanity
