"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," – Judge Vaughn Walker.
For more quotes from various figures on this ruling, see the ever entertaining and provocative blog of Andrew Sullivan.
I am not sure how I'd articulate a Catholic theological case favoring gay marriage, though in my gut I think it can and should be done. But it is very clear to me that there is no US Constitutional case to be made for opposing gay civil marriage. In Catholic theology, procreation is one of the "goods" (i.e. good ends) of marriage. For that reason, in Catholic canon law, a person who is completely incapable of sexual intercourse is forbidden to marry, for example. Now, that flies in the face of Catholic willingness to marry the very old, or persons who are otherwise unlikely or even cannot have children. But the capability for the act of heterosexual intercourse is required for marriage in the Church. But all this is beside the point civilly. There is no requirement in civil law of fertility, of potency, or of desire to have children. In civil law, the only thing necessary is that the couple not be currently married to anyone else, be of sound mind and capable of contracting marriage (age restrictions exist to prevent persons who are not yet mature of mind to make such a commitment). Given all this, there seems to be no reason why two adult persons of any gender combination should be prevented from legally marrying.
Of course, tomorrow's news will bring stories of outraged bishops. Church officials will pronounce doom, and will argue on theological grounds why same sex marriage is wrong. They will invoke natural law theory, which frankly, exists only in a theological context, or exists by a hairs breath outside of theology. But the fact is that they are wrong. The wagging mitres are just dead wrong. And worse, they hurt and oppress people in their obstinacy. They read only themselves, consider only the opinions that they already agree with, and then try to play political hardball. Fortunately for those who seek to legalize long term unions, the bishops are rather bad lately in playing hardball.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just doing a little jig of celebration.
The bishops can prove their case by referring to their own self-proving system of thought; which is what practically every theological and philosophical system does, you know?
But - "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." A priori conclusions are often a straitjacket for the human race. Religion as commonly practiced often boils down to the ability to control what "other people" do - those nasty outsiders who don't toe the line.
But as the judge said in the Perry case, while in our democracy the majority makes the laws, there must be some rational basis for controlling or restricting people's actions. It will be very interesting to see what happens to his very well-reasoned ruling on appeal.
Interesting comments here. I think the bishops need to tread lightly here. I think the more some bishops speak out against gay marriage, the more negative attention they draw to themselves. After the abuse crisis I don't think the bishops have a lot of credibility when it comes to human sexuality.
Post a Comment