"Are we prepared to promote conditions in which the living contact with God can be reestablished? For our lives today have become godless to the point of complete vacuity. God is no longer with us in the conscious sense of the word. He is denied, ignored, excluded from every claim to have a part in our daily life." - Alfred Delp, S.J.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

The Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Proposition 8

On the eve of the Stonewall anniversary, at the pinnacle of Gay Pride Month, what could be more appropriate?

First, a story.

When I lived in Boston, I had an acquaintance who was a Rabbinical student who also liked to go to Eucharistic adoration and was very much interested in Fatima, as well as Charismatic prayer meetings.  I lost touch with him, and never knew what became of him, but something he once said to me stayed with me through the years.  I must have mentioned to him that another guy I knew wanted me to move in with him.  The other man was also interested in a relationship.  I was living as a sort of hermit in a small room on Beacon Hill at the time.  I wasn't at all interested in a relationship or moving in with anyone.  The young man with whom I shared the story must have foreseen a strong temptation I would face later.  Interrupting me, he said something rather extraordinary, about throwing away my relationship with Christ in order to have more security.  He then referenced St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, which in turn references the story in Genesis concerning Esau: My friend pleaded with me:  "Do not exchange your birthright for a meal."

I have friends who told me they are in discussions with their financial advisor whether or not it is to their benefit financially to get married in Minnesota now that same sex marriage has become legal.  Gay marriage is very much about inheritance, financial security and benefits.

Today the Supreme Court enacted rulings that support gay marriage.
The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage. 
In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional. 

The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.
The Supreme Court also struck down a 1996 federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples, a major victory for gay rights advocates seeking the right to marry. In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court found the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection rights of same-sex couples. 
The Supreme Court's decision in the DOMA case immediately provides full federal benefits to same-sex couples in the 12 states that have legalized gay marriage, and would apply in California with Proposition 8 overturned. It also would provide federal benefits to the more than 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008 before Proposition 8 was passed. - Source

USCCB responds: Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation.



  1. This is what I don't understand ... Why can't anyone just name anyone as their heir, or grant visitation rights to anyone they want?

    I don't mean gay couples necessarily, but think of old women who live together, etc.

    1. Because it's also about making all of us agree that not only are homosexual acts and relationships okay- but they are a moral good.
      Christus Victor! We shall not be overcome while we live in Him.

  2. +JMJ+

    Cracked.com, one of my favourite Web sites was updated with a bunch of new articles today, one of them specifically about this ruling.

    As expected, that article really tries to drum home the point that unless you want to be married someone of the same sex, the change is none of your concern. The line "This decision does not affect you in any way" appears eleven times--by deliberate design. I totally got what the writer was saying, even if I totally disagreed with him.

    Then I read a second article on a totally different topic: video games. Its author was complaining about microtransactions, that feature in modern games that lets you buy whatever your character/avatar needs with real money. He wrote: "Since the inception of microtransactions, we've all been saying that it's no big deal--if you don't want them, you don't have to buy them. I was even one of those people. And now it's become so commonplace that they come bundled in with your purchase. Your games can be pre-ruined, even if you willfully abstain. What was once a frivolous practice is now the norm, because that's how the consumer market progresses."

    Ah, Cracked! Even when you're wrong, you're right. =P

  3. There was an apple on my counter yesterday, and by the power vested in the Supreme Court, today it became an orange!

    Marvelous powers.

  4. "...no law made by man can override the norm written by the Creator without society becoming dramatically wounded in what constitutes its basic foundation. To forget this would mean to weaken the family, penalizing the children and rendering the future of society precarious."
    Benedict XVI
    Address to Participants of Congress on Natural Moral Law
    February 12, 2007 (from rorate caeli today)


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.