US Supreme Court To Hear Cases on Changing What Can Never Be a Marriage Into a Marriage

By Deacon Keith Fournier
12/10/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The institutions of government should defend marriage against those who would redefine it.

True marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship defined by nature and protected by the natural law that binds all men and women. It finds its foundation in the order of creation. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they create a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - On Friday, December 7, 2012, the order List was released and the Supreme Court granted Certiorari (Review) in two cases, United States v Windsor, Edith, S. et al. and Hollingsworth, Dennis, et al, v Perry, Kristin M, et al.

At stake in these two cases is whether or not marriage as between one man and one woman will continue to receive the protection of the State and Federal Government in the United States.

As usual, the orders were brief. On the Windsor case, "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case."

On the Hollingsworth case, the order was not only brief, it was more obscure, "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, �2 of the Constitution in this case."

The Windsor case involves two women in a lesbian partnership for forty four years. They civilly married in 2007 because Canada granted legal equivalency between homosexual or lesbian partnerships and authentic marriage.

One of the women died and the Federal Government of the United States would not recognize the surviving partner as a spouse for purposes of calculating estate taxes. That is because of our law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which protects marriage as what it is, between one man and one woman.

Although it is the Federal law, DOMA has been unilaterally rejected by the Justice Department of the United States under the Obama administration. They will not enforce it. It has also been assaulted in the Courts by homosexual equivalency activists. They want to compel a legal equivalency between homosexual and lesbian partnerships and marriages.

In Hollingsworth, the supporters of marriage as between one man and one woman asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That Court upheld the unilateral action of a lower federal Court which struck down a constitutional amendment lawfully passed by the citizens of California. It defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Supporters of what I call the "homosexual equivalency movement" believe they are right. They now speak of "marriage equivalency". By the term they mean somehow making what can never be a marriage, a homosexual partnership, to be a marriage, by a pronouncement of a Court or a legislature. They accuse us of being against marriage because we will not redefine it to include homosexual partnerships.

The leaders of the homosexual equivalency movement insist that homosexual sexual practices are morally equivalent to the sexual expression of marital love between a man and a woman. They now insist that the State and Federal Government treat homosexual relationships as legally equivalent to marriage.

They convinced the main stream media to frame efforts to defend marriage as opposing gay couples. They have been joined by collaborators in the Judiciary and some elected officials who now view themselves as "liberators" when they are injuring the common good and threatening the foundation of civil society.

They are dedicated to building a different society where the positive law of the Nation forces us to call to be a marriage what can never be a marriage. If we do not, we will face the police power of the State.

The truth about marriage is not simply a religious construct. The Natural Law reveals - and the cross cultural history of civilization affirms - that marriage is between a man and a woman, open to children and intended for life.

Marriage is the foundation for the family which is the privileged place for the formation of virtue and character in children, our future citizens. The family is the first society, first economy, first school, first civilizing and mediating institution and first government.

I have warned my fellow supporters of marriage - in my work and in my writing - not to use the term traditional as an adjective for marriage. There were a number of reasons I opined about the dangers of this propaganda ploy. All have proven to be correct.

First, the phrase traditional marriage sounds like those who defend true marriage want to turn the clock back and live in the past. It paints us as opposed to progress. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who seek to redefine the word ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 13 Comments

Celia
5 months ago
Tom, Jesus would tell the lesbian like he did the adulteress I too do not condemn you . Go & Sin no more. We all know right from wrong at the end of the day. The hardest thing to do today is to be honest & unselfish in order to follow Christ every thing is about ME!!!
Thomas
6 months ago
I agree with the statements that marriage is between a man,woman, and child. Without the communion of children to the mother and father, marriage is reduced to a purely emotional, sexual statement with no benefit to society. It would lack the natural law of life, motherhood, and fatherhood. What would be the purpose of the government being involved at all, tax reason I guess, feeding the treasury.
judy claar
6 months ago
Wow! What responses! And what a mess! Does anyone know their CCD?
Good article Deacon! Prayerful Blessings to All...
Starzec
6 months ago
Just a couple of issues:
First, for those who believe the Church recognizes civil marriages, please re-educate yourselves. I married my wife in a civil marriage some 20 years ago. When I returned to the church in the early 2000's, I was told what I already knew: that I was not eligible to take the sacrements until my marriage was convalidated. At that time, my wife of 15 years and I attended classes and took the test all of which culminated in our being married, again, by a priest. What I realized then and I suspect there is more of now, is that many Catholics are ignorant of the rules. I point to a Catholic friend of ours who was divorced and remarried and divorced again but still participated in the sacrements. When I informed him he should not be doing that, he scoffed at the "silly rules". I said I was pretty sure. He said the priest knew and did not act. I suspect there are several others who participate in the sacrements and are not supposed to be; I imagine there are several more civil married folks who do so unwittingly. If you are worried about gay marriages, they by "silly rules" will not be recognized by the Church.

Second, Throughout the convalidation process, my wife and I joked about how ironic it is to sit in a class being taught how to be married by people, priest and a nun, who have NEVER been married. There will be those who scoff and say they are married to their Faith or to God, but they do not have to wake up with their Faith mad at them for not paying attention to them, God does not pester them to fix the faucet etc. I have never heard of God not talking to someone because that person shrunk his favorite sweater in the wash. The idea that priests and nuns know something about being married, "traditional" or gay, is something the Catholic Church has very wrong.

The real argument is over civil marriage. As I mentioned above, the church struggles with civil marriages in general. It does not have a firm grasp of how to deal with even the "traditional" civil marriages (why Convalidation) let alone the gay marriage issue. When the Church has non-married persons trying to educated those about to be married, when the Church has persons who do not understand the rules and ramifications of their Faith, then there is a serious disconnect between doctrine and practice.
Joseph
6 months ago
Excellent article, Deacon, but what in your opinion is the best way for us to describe long-term relationships of homosexuals under the law. I ask because we all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, as you quite rightly point out. Would it be best to describe them as 'gay unions', thereby reserving, as you point out, the word 'marriage' exclusively for heterosexuals? Or 'civil unions'? As you have probably heard, in the UK the Conservative government (that's right, Conservative!!) is now ramming through Gay marriage not just before a Government official but in Churches i.e. full Church weddings for gays. They say that no Church will be 'forced' to conduct such weddings but under the law they will be able to if they want to. Of course no one believes this. As soon as the law passes gays will roll up in front of churches, especially the catholic churches, demanding to be allowed to have their wedding in the church. Since they will be refused they will take out legal challenges and everyone knows they will win since under the European Court of Human Rights their cases will be viewed positively. Once this measure is passed, or even before, expect the same tactic to be used in the US. The gay movement and their secularist backers are determined to have gays not just 'married' but 'married' in Churches. And once the Catholic Church refuses (as we will), persecution will begin in earnest. The storm clouds are gathering and dark days are coming for all people of Faith.
vance
6 months ago
The US Supreme Court has left me very pessimistic after they ruled in favor of Obamacare. The problem the church has is that 52% of the faithful believe that Homosexual Marriage is OK. The simple reason for this is that the Faithful does not hear a thing about marriage from the pulpit.
mike robertson
6 months ago
Catholic democrats are to blame for voting again for someone who thinks he (and his daughter) are right and God is wrong as to what constitutes marriage. We should not be surprised at such arrogance. The Catholic democrats' candidate refused to acknowledge God on Thanksgiving Day. I will acknowledge God, not the Catholic democrats or their candidate. The Catholic democrats' candidate also thinks it should be legal to kill girls and boys outside of their mom's womb even after they survived the attempt to kill them in their mom's womb. The Catholic democrats' candidate also continues his relentless immoral and unjust war against the Church. We are threatened with closure of our institutions and even prison for some (I hope it is only some) of our leaders for continuing to obey God and not to obey the Catholic democrats' candidate and his immoral law. Until the Catholic democrats' candidate was elected, we had freedom of religion and no need to worry about our institutions being closed. So we are not surprised that the Catholic democrats' candidate, who is the author of such a corrupt social policy, thinks he knows more than God as to what constitutes marriage.
youkokun
6 months ago
Tom McGuire, you've got something there. Of course we can't speak for Jesus like Protestants tend to do and claim knowledge of His political stances, but we know He is merciful yet holy; He loves all sinners yet arrived and was "pierced for our transgressions", that is He became a sacrifice so that we might become holy inheritors of the Spirit. In Beaverton, OR, there are about two regular Catholic churches, and then there's one church that claims to minister to both Catholics and Lutherans who support homosexuality. I think this church is confused, and true Catholic leaders must minister to them wth disciplinary action. Jesus would have said to the lesbian what He said to everyone else: "Cast down your net and follow Me."
Tom McGuire
6 months ago
Although we repeat over and over again the natural law can be known by reason, it would seem many, perhaps the majority of people most of whom are reasonable, are not convinced by the argument of natural law. Marriage between a man and a woman for Catholics is a Sacrament. Catholics would do well to place greater emphasis on preparation for entering into a valid marriage, and when a relationship fails to find a way through forgiveness to reconcile partners. Good marriages are the most important witness of Christian marriage.

The issue of state definition of marriage will not be determined by the Catholic Church; members of the Church must participate in the civil process that defines legal marriage. It would be wise to not just stand against what is considered to be against natural law, but find ways to include homosexual people in the community as full participating members. If the woman at the well had been a lesbian, what would Jesus have said?
Rob
6 months ago
I think this is another area where the church's neglect of real life marriages has created a circumstance where we have no credibility. The teachings are right, but with divorce rates in our own ranks that are similar to the nonbelievers, it's hard to get those to take us at our word. Do what we say, but don't do as we do. Does not work.

Personally I think this ship has sailed. We find ourselves like the bridesmaids with no oil.

Prev12 Next

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.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

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

Post Comment