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

11 - 20 of 23 Comments

  1. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    John: "These are the main arguments I have come across and I haven't yet found irrefutable answers or even solutions to them."

    Sorry, John, but you can find those answers in both the Deacon's article and in some of the posted comments to it. You apparently just choose to ignore all the valid arguments that refute your 3 main points. Here are the synopses of those answers:

    1. Tax benefits are governmental rewards that promote behaviors the government believes will improve the general welfare of its citizens. There is no societal benefit that accrues by virtue of adult cohabitation, no matter how long its duration. See my previous post - a tax benefit that rewards adult cohabitation is a benefit that rewards laziness. The Church has no power to decide about tax benefits, and even if it did, it would not favor promoting an adult behavior it has long considered to be a serious sin.

    2. there is already a tax benefit, and many other government benefits, awarded equally to anyone who adopts a dependent whether they are married or not.

    3. A marriage between a man and a woman is treated as "greater" by government because of the possibility of having children, i.e. creating new productive citizens. The government could limit this tax benefit to only those who have a high probability to birth children, but instead assume that any man and woman have the potential to do so, without having to calculate a probability or inquire into a couple's bedroom intentions. Homosexuals have 0% chance to birth new citizens whether they call themselves "married" or not.

  2. Richard
    1 year ago

    Excellent article, Deacon.


    I see nothing wrong with letting someone's partner take the role of next of kin. But I find these estate arguments to be ludicrous.

    Twenty five years ago, my uncle died. He was a successful businessman lived with his partner for at least 20 years prior. When he died, his partner got everything. Not even his namesake, yours truly, got anything. Which is fine and how it should have been.

    So the nonsense about estates and taxes is just that. If the issue is taxes, lets fix that. Maybe we can get the homosexual community to come out against the death tax and everyone will be happy. Maybe.

  3. John
    1 year ago

    I am a Catholic in favour of our traditional definition of marriage, however I found this article lacking in its ability to convince anyone who doesn't already believe in traditional marriage. We would do better to listen to those in favour of same-sex unions and adequately respond to their criticisms. The ones I've noticed most often arising are:
    1. For a homosexual couple in a union for X number of years, should they not receive tax benefits similar to those of a heterosexual couple? Surely the church has no business determining who gets taxed what.
    2. Is it not better that an orphaned child have some parents than no parents at all? A mother and father are most certainly better but what if a chile has neither and has no prospect of it in the future? Poor quality food is surely better than no food to one who is starving, no?
    3. If marriage between a man and a woman is greater because of their ability to bring forth new life, should we not then restrict infertile couples or couples that meet in advanced years from getting married since neither of these have a reasonable chance of procreating and the latter should not adopt so as to not subject the child to possible embarassment of having parents that should very well be grandparents?
    These are the main arguments I have come across and I haven't yet found irrefutable answers or even solutions to them. If someone could please clarify or provide some direction it'd be much appreciated.

  4. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Daniel : "If you spend 44 years with someone, then you should be treated the same way for federal taxation purposes as a heterosexual couple. "

    It doesn't matter how long any two adults live in the same house, they are already treated exactly the same for federal taxation purposes as any two single adults, or as any two married adults who file separately. The married filing option was created to reward couples who joined together for the purpose of birthing new American citizens into the country, so that they could be in a better financial state to nurture a child without earning as much outside income.

    If someone adopts a dependent, they can still take a tax deduction for the dependent when filing as a single person. The purpose of the filing married benefit is to encourage families in society to produce new citizens who are reared by stable mothers and fathers. There are already equal benefits available to all those who take care of preexisting dependent citizens. If the marriage filing benefit is extended to homosexuals, it is changing the purpose of the filing married benefit from encouraging normal families to bear and raise children, to the purpose of encouraging two (or more?) adults to live together.

    What possible benefit does a society obtain as a result of multiple adults living together, as opposed to them living separately? Living together makes it easier for one (or more?) of the participants to not work as hard or produce as much. In other words, providing a tax benefit for engaging in a living arrangement that cannot possibly produce children rewards and promotes laziness.

  5. Momof11
    1 year ago

    Pete Brady, your comment has very clearly put into worlds the general idea that has been in my mind on this issue, but I couldn't put into words. Thank you.

  6. SaraPalen
    1 year ago

    It's not just about relationships between adults.
    Deacon Keith, check out the Minnesota protective Schools Act before the state legislature there. What do you see wrong with this picture?

    this will be forced into the Catholic schools

    Canada, here we come.

  7. Daniel
    1 year ago

    If you spend 44 years with someone, then you should be treated the same way for federal taxation purposes as a heterosexual couple.

  8. Harold Olsen
    1 year ago

    The Supreme Court SHOULD vote to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. But will it? I really do not think they will. I think they will do as both houses of Congress do and obey their god and messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. He has told them to rule it unconstitutional and so they will. He speaks and they obey. The two houses of Congress have allowed Obama to render them irrelevant, and the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. He once overruled them and they let him get away with it. There is no longer any real opposition to Obama and his policies, just token opposition.

  9. Nathan
    1 year ago

    Great article. Deacon nails again. Spot on!

  10. abey
    1 year ago

    A one on one to the fulness is what God has made to the perfection of life but as said, too many cooks spoil the Broth, likewise is to the Family unbalanced when the said equation becomes broken.


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

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Judges 13:2-7, 24-25
There was a man of Zorah of the tribe of Dan, called Manoah. ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 71:3-4, 5-6, 16-17
Be a sheltering rock for me, always accessible; you have ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 1:5-25
In the days of King Herod of Judaea there lived a priest called ... Read More

Saint of the Day

December 19 Saint of the Day

St. Nemesius
December 19: Martyr of Egypt. He was burned alive in Alexandria, Egypt, ... Read More