Skip to main content

Neither Friend of Court or Culture: Obama Asks Supreme Court to Undermine Marriage Comments

On February 28, 2013, the Department of Justice of the Obama  Administration filed what is called a Friend of the Court or Amicus Brief in the case styled Hollingsworth v Perry.It should have come as no surprise to those who have been actually watching Barack Obama and his administration - and not simply buying into the sophistry which they offer with such regularity. Continue Reading

21 - 30 of 150 Comments

  1. Emma
    2 years ago

    Just a few short observations : I believe it was de Mello who said, " People don't throw stones at bare branches ". It is hypocritical to the point of absurdity that obama would lean on the Constitution re. this issue while he promotes the murder of the unborn, authorizes assassination on U.S. Citizens and broad electronic monitoring powers, attempts to annihilate "Second Amendment Rights, take religious freedoms from all, suppresses the voice of dissent in the press, etc.

    To the "so -called " Catholics who are ashamed of church teaching and threaten to leave if it doesn't change, please do. You undermine our faith and lead others astray! The church is NOT dying! Ours is growing. And lastly : I can call myself a horse. I may convince some who have no knowledge of horses that I am one. I may even, if the political capital is sufficient, convince the president to publicly state that I am a horse: however, that still will not make me a horse. Now, think I'll go see if my husband is up to getting started on another Catholic Baby. :)

  2. Thomas
    2 years ago

    I want to thank the modderator for letting the post continue, it shows how vile,deceitful, and immoral the left is. There only standard is if it feels good do it. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, hell be damn. Destroy the very corner stone of civilization, marriage between a man and a woman, it doesn't matter that previous attempts by a very minor segment of society that must have there vices, have failed. They are controlled by their desires, not there reason.
    Is marriage only an institution to legalize an emotion, or is it an institution to continue our speicies. If love is the only reason for marriage, then why is government even in the business of legalizing a marriage, taxes I quess. Why not legalize hate, at least we would know who the hateful people real are.
    Love is only one of the glues to marriage, the other is procreation. Without a legal definition of a bound between a mother,father and child, the children are left to there own devices. When anyone can be marriaged to anyone, marriage has no purpose, or legal pertection for the child. Protection is the states only responsibility in marriage. I guess we could kill children in the womb, then we wouldn,t have to worry about humanity continuing.
    The abscurdity of same-sex marriage is truly amazing to the lack of though in it's creation, and the lack of any moral certainy for mankind.

  3. eithena
    2 years ago

    Martin Luther King he.s not+never will be

  4. in dog we trust
    2 years ago

    All you catholic people that are against gay marriage need to grow up.

  5. John
    2 years ago

    Well, people, we elected a president who became an Emperor, who wants everything his way!!!

  6. Paul-Emile Leray
    2 years ago

    A few points:
    1. The words "anarchy", "relativism"; the sentence, "the law is what the courts say it is according to some legal positivists"; were interesting. What if "the law is an ass"? (Tony de Mello; SJ; d.1987)
    2. In most cult-ures, some issues being discussed in the so called advanced "west" are not even issues. As a matter of fact, much of it makes people laugh in disbelief.
    3. If the government is so concerned about trying to 'fix' the economy, what are they doing wasting time and energy on things going against the future of the economy?
    4. Who could potentially own the best land, in the best neighborhoods, in urban centers, if pools of certain groups of people would unite? The family man will end up not only on the other side of the tracks, he risks ending up in the compound holding sea-containers!
    5. The arrogance of politicians, at times, is nauseating. They are politicians. Politicians. They aren't towering theologians, philosophers, physicists, outstanding artists, composers, Aristotles and Shakespeares. They are POLITICIANS. And even if some are highly intelligent, it does not entitle them to redefine and sophistically argue REALITY.
    6. If people took off their celebrity gazing glasses, stopped being so mesmerized by this sort of idol worship of anyone and anything with a facebook or twitter account, and used their REASON as well many of these issues would not even be taken seriously.
    7. Yes, every human being is equal. This does not mean that society ought to cry "defamation" or "injustice" or "abuse" each and every time someone contradicts them. Politicians, partisan politics, are by nature often divisive. It is tribal in essence. They are forever putting one thing against the other and promoting issues in opposition for often no other reason than to keep themselves employed! Without some scandal or another, what do many lawyers or politicians do? (or many journalists, for that matter)
    8. Since when does being a celebrity entitle a person to re-invent the wheels? Being a celebrity is being a celebrity. I hope some theologians, philosophers, start coming out of the woods and throw their weight around on these issues. (and not just the liberal politically correct ones seeking more grant money inside their university depts!)
    9. If the only true progress is spiritual, is the west really leading these days?
    10. If what is said or written gets violently opposed, it is almost certain some truth is being spoken or written. If it gets ridiculed, even better. If people think you are insane, you are likely the sober one telling the drunks the party is over.
    I think it is time, the world over, to KEEP politicians as politicians; it is not their role to re-invent certain things. They are in the business of governing, keeping the waters and streets safe and clean. Distributing funds, dealing with international trade, these types of things are what politicians should be doing. They have no business re-inventing the definition of the sun, moon, stars, and so forth. I am so sick of these jack-asses that I take them seriously not for what they often do, but rather for the DAMAGE they often are or risk doing. Listening to them is nauseating. I often wonder if they don't deliberately create chaos just to create a job keeping them busy cleaning it up? Spill milk. Then, be busy cleaning up spilt milk. It keeps people busy for the sake of being busy. Most of these issues shouldn't even be issues.
    A very well written article, Deacon. As always, interesting.
    Paul-Emile Leray

  7. lex
    2 years ago

    At least for me, the most appealing argument against mandating that same-sex legal unions be recognized as "marriage" is that this ignores what is the accepted and uniformly prevailing meaning of that word and imposes a government diktat that marriage shall henceforth have a new meaning.

    That the government has the power to define words as they are used in statutes is recognized, but that power cannot be without limit. If "marriage" is mandated by the government to now mean something unknown to history, any other word is similarly subject to such revision. To take an admittedly absurd example, an indentured servant of any gender could be defined as "married" to his/her master. The fact that the parties to a same sex “marriage” might approve of the terminology while the indentured servant does not is not relevant. The thief and the embezzler, the drug addict and the pusher all object to the names ascribed to them and their objection does not affect society's or the law’s use of those terms.

    The argument is made that by the government’s refusing to mandate the term “marriage” to apply to same-sex legal unions causes those unions to be considered, under law and by society, to be less than traditional marriages. This, the argument goes, constitutes prohibited discrimination relative to society’s view of what are traditionally labeled as “marriages.”

    The absurdity of this argument is demonstrated by the alternative solution to this “discrimination:” instead of mandating same-sex legal unions to be “marriages” as advanced by the government in Hollingsworth v Perry the government might mandate that opposite-sex legal unions can no longer be called "marriages", because of the (claimed) implicit negative reflection on “same-sex legal unions.” Thus, the best solution just might be the exorcism altogether of the word “marriage” from American English as we recognize the term “marriage” to be the hurtful pejorative it apparently is…and so a new slur is coined by the government: one who is “married.” To recognize the impossibility of that solution should inform that the relief demanded in Hollingsworth is no less problematic.

    In the end, the power of the government should properly be limited to dealing, if at all, with the substance of inequities, and not at the margins. The recognition that California affords all substantive legal rights under law to those "married" in the traditional sense, and to those in "same-sex legal unions" (or however it is labeled), would seem to remove the state's role in any substantive harm claimed to arise from the use of one word or another to label the relationship. There therefore would seem to be little basis for standing in a court of law by the proponents of the mandatory labeling of same-sex legal unions as "marriage".

    Those interested in the further consideration of government power to define the language should take the time to read George Orwell's 1984, especially the discussion in the novel and the appendix by Orwell regarding "Newspeak," the device used by the totalitarian "English Socialism" government of Big Brother to control the populace by creating "thoughtcrimes".

  8. Frederick Liewehr
    2 years ago

    Brad Leutweiler begins by saying that the government should stay out of our "beeswax", and limited government most certainly was the goal of our Founding Fathers. He is also correct in asserting that laws should be equally applied. The problem for a nation is the conflict between individualism, which is rooted in self-gratification, and society, and the problem of the conflict between egalitarianism, where everyone has equal rights, and radical egalitarianism, where equality of results are required and uniformity of talent, effort, and so forth assumed. Liberalism of the classical form to which many Founders subscribed always contained the seeds of modern radical liberalism, but in the past men were kept from the hedonism that is the end result of the road on which we are traveling by the constraints of religion, the morality that is derived therefrom, and law based upon that morality. The Founders were not afraid to legislate their morality, and neither has any other viable society. The radical homosexual agenda is not a matter of seeking to have the government mind its own business. That was a smokescreen, as were the accusations of "gay bashing", as if Christians were hanging homosexuals from lamp posts. Their true agenda is to use the government to force a cowed nation to accept and promote the homosexual cause. Tolerance is one thing, but enshrining homosexual "marriage" in law brings many legal requirements and endless lawsuits forcing hate speech laws, homosexual indoctrination in the schools, employer benefits of homosexual "partners", sanctions against religious institutions and those who do not subscribe to the party line, and on and on. Marriage and the family are the foundation of this nation, and that foundation, which has been increasingly chipped away at for the last 100 years is now being wrecking balled by Obama and the radical leftists in government. The question is whether or not we are going to allow Big Brother, or "our father" as his admirers refer to him, to replace God.

  9. Christian Paul W.
    2 years ago

    Hold on America. Pray for this nation. Pray, and meditate for we dwell in the loins of the beast. How can we control the head when we live in the dark? Light a fire brothers and sisters. God will prevail. He will return soon riding a horse. Stars are the horses shoes. The great spirit has shown me.

  10. Sam
    2 years ago

    Same-sex marriage is hypocritical! It's not new. It existed during ancient Rome and ancient China, but disappeared. Look at Norway. After 10 years of legalizing same-sex marriage, their divorce rate is at 200%. At that rate, it will disappear in 10 years! If anything, same-sex couples if wanted equal rights should be paying at least doulbe their taxes for not producing new offsprings who would be contributing to the new revenues.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 27 Saint of the Day

St. Rupert
March 27: Bishop and missionary, also listed as Robert of Hrodbert. A ... Read More