Skip to main content

Defending Marriage at the Supreme Court, DOMA: Justice Ginsburg, Marriage is Different than Milk Comments

Marriage has been reduced to another commodity. In an age when children can be manufactured and grown in a surrogate when wanted - while millions are being aborted at will because they are not wanted - "Civil Rights" are being manufactured by the agencies of the civil government. They are multiplying while the real rights, the fundamental human rights, endowed upon us by God, are being taken away, one after another. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 23 Comments

  1. Gerald
    1 year ago

    The US government does not write policy for the Catholic Church and the US government does not define marriage for Catholics. The Sacrament of Marriage is not changing ---it is still between a man and a woman. People who embrace our man-made government for guidance are embracing a "golden calf". Relax---nothing is changing.

  2. Tafur
    1 year ago

    Same sex marriage has never been sanctioned by any culture at any time in history and more than likely going back into pre-history. I can say that because some histories of cultures were carried to the present by oral traditions and same sex marriage was not part of their past.

    I do not want to hear the usual liberal lies saying otherwise. If you wish to try, post the evidence, but I have demolished all such stories to date.

  3. Enshala
    1 year ago

    Thank you so much for your thoughtful article. It is truly disturbing how the leftists are trying to dismantle Western Civilization one institution at a time.

    The argument which I have found results in the most insults is the following: "Even from an atheistic, naturalistic point of view, please explain why homosexuals want to have children when it is not fundamentally possible for them to do so?" Being homosexual, whether by birth or by choice, is an anomalous condition. This is something to be mourned, just as anyone else who has a physical or psychological dysfunction.

    Keep up the good work, Deacon! This is my first time at this forum, and I might stick around because of your article...

    Blessings, and Happy Easter!

  4. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    John: "there are benefits to adult cohabitation. There are studies demonstrating that couples, regardless of sexual orientation, tend to live longer than people who are single. "

    People living longer is of no particular benefit to society in general. You are making an anecdotal, emotional argument, not a logical one. When someone lives longer it may benefit them as an individual, but in general it drains more from the public treasury because older people generally tend to draw retirement and medical services from the government for a longer period of time. Overall, people living longer does not cause them to work longer and pay more taxes, it is actuarially just the opposite. You also cite no specific study as evidence of what you claim. I have never read any study that makes a claim of cohabitation causing increased lifespan, and even if there were such a study, it is certainly not the basis for the existence of the marriage tax benefit.

    John: "your assumption that two or more adults cohabiting together necessarily encourages laziness is unfounded. There are many more examples..unwed, who engage in...", etc.

    You are again making an emotional argument, not founded in fact, law, logic and have erroneously stated what I wrote. I did not write "adults cohabitating necessarily encourages laziness". i wrote "a tax benefit that rewards adult cohabitation is a benefit that rewards laziness." It is a simple, undeniable fact that a marriage tax benefit makes two people financially better off with less combined income. The reason for a marriage tax benefit has nothing to do with unwed parents who are irresponsible. My argument is that marriage is considered by government to be the best method for the creation of new citizens, which outweighs, in the eyes of the government, the possible reward of laziness that occurs if no children are produced. That is the basic reason for a marriage tax benefit, no matter how many people abuse the institution of marriage or parenthood.

    John: "I remind you respectfully that I referred to infertile and post-menopausal couples, ones who certainly have 0% chance of conceiving..."

    I remind you that I stated the government could conceivably take fertility factors into account before allowing a marriage tax benefit, but they decided not to do so, probably so that people would not have to file proof of fertility documentation with their tax forms every year. Being human male and female is all the government requires, at least for now, to be considered potentially fertile and I hope they keep it that way.

    I had no intention of being "confrontational". I attempted to be truthful, logical, factual and merely pointed out to you that you were wrong in stating the answers you seek are not to be found. They are to be found, and are good, reasonable, simple, factual, and logical arguments. Some people just do not want to entertain reason, truth, logic or facts anymore. Supporters of homosexual "marriage" are drastically overrepresented in this regard.

  5. Gabriella
    1 year ago

    A marriage between a man and a woman needs to be consummated in order to be sealed. One cannot call anything else a marriage because in case of two homosexuals there is no chance of consummation, is there! All those, fighting for legal recognition of unions between homosexuals, are blind and they are blind willfully. No person of healthy reason would argue that two people of the same gender can form a union for the purpose of procreation. Anything else is the work of the master of all lies, the Devil himself!

  6. Joseph Tran
    1 year ago

    These cases are the test to she how the wisdom of the America Suprem Court is.
    First we casn see that the tax is on the property, the estate, not the tax on marriage.
    Second there is a real marriage and the fake marriage. let us see how:
    1. Marriage is man+ Woman
    2. Marriage is man+man, or woman + woman
    3. Marriage is lesbian+lesbian, or gay + gay
    4 marriage is gay +lesbian
    the question is what is the equal right ? the answer must be:
    marriage is Man+ Moman = Gay+ Lesbian
    only this equation we can declaire thay are equal

  7. John
    1 year ago

    @ Jerry N,

    Please, I didn't choose to ignore any answers, rather I'm looking for a more comprehensive response. There was no need to set a confrontational tone to your reply.

    Firstly, there are benefits to adult cohabitation. There are studies demonstrating that couples, regardless of sexual orientation, tend to live longer than people who are single. This is for a myriad of reasons. The longer and healthier our lives the more time it allows us to work and take in an income and thus contribute back to society through taxes and consumerism.

    Secondly, your assumption that two or more adults cohabiting together necessarily encourages laziness is unfounded. There are many more examples I can give you of young mothers and fathers, unwed, who engage in unrestrained intercourse and give birth to multiple children for whom they have no means of providing. This is the reality I deal with on a daily basis in my medical practice and this seems, to be more encouraging of laziness and societal drain than of two cohabiting tax-paying adults. In many cases these children end up raised by their respective grandparents, develop few to no social skills or coping mechanisms, have higher rates of developmental disorders and thus are left looking to the state for their medications and personalized education.

    Finally, I remind you respectfully that I referred to infertile and post-menopausal couples, ones who certainly have 0% chance of conceiving, therefore no assumptions need to be made on the part of the government. So my question again is, if marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation, how can we legitimately allow these couples, who, prior to marriage exhibit zero possibility of conception, to be called "married?"

    I'm not arguing in favour of a redefinition of the word, nor for any inclusion of homosexual couples into the current definition, only that we examine our arguments more fully instead of

  8. Rob
    1 year ago

    I will keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. The time to get serious about what marriage is was well before this effort started. It was when the divorce rate in traditional marriage was skyrocketing. That was the time to teach the culture about what marriage was. But it didn't happen because that would have required the church to deal with it's own. And thus far on marriage we only seemed interested in pointing outside of ourselves.

    When you look at the marriage prep that takes place in parishes coupled with virtually nothing for ongoing support, it really doesn't take all these articles to tell us how we got here. The culture today, if ever, has failed to understand what marriage is for a long time.

    As usual, we are way late to the game.

  9. Pete Brady
    1 year ago

    The Constitutionality of the argument against "homosexual marriage" can be summed up in these words of John Adams, 2nd President of the United States:

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Adams correspondence to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798)

    WHY go back to the "original intent" of the Founders instead of floundering around inventing a non-existent "gay" civil right? Try Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States:

    "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Jefferson correspondence to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

  10. vince Akhere
    1 year ago

    Marriage should be between a man and woman and that how it has been since creation , anything short of that is satanic. You cannot clam to be a Christian and say you support a marriage between same sex. This is the most cancerous thing of the century.

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 2 Saint of the Day

Bl. Charles the Good
March 2: In 1086, St. Canute, King of Denmark and father of Blessed ... Read More