An interesting and cogent defense of the rights of individuals to 'marriage'... whatever that word means. I am still troubled by one element of this interpretation by the US Federal Court: what does 'marriage' now mean? If it is simply a registration of a legal domestic relationship - something that every citizen possesses according to this ruling, does the state still possess the capacity to determine what a 'marriage' is? Is it necessarily limited to a relationship between two individuals, or can other configurations be accepted? Will there need to be a separate set of laws that will govern sexual relationships within 'marriage' to ensure the genetic health of any progeny that would spring from the marital act? Would this not be a gross intrusion of the state into the 'bedrooms of the nation', unraveling legal definitions that we have benefited from since the 1960's?
Fr. Tim
Editorial - Marriage Is a Constitutional Right - NYTimes.com
Fr. Tim
Editorial - Marriage Is a Constitutional Right - NYTimes.com
Individual states can set whatever parameters they like, so long as they stay within federal guidelines. States can set legal age limits and levels of consanguinity they will allow within their own borders, but they must also now have reciprocity with marriage laws in other states.
ReplyDeleteAs for sexual behavior among consenting adults, it's not something they can control now outside of marriage, so they cannot control it within marriage, either. This will very likely lead to legalized poly marriages within a relatively short time. Because, as it now stands, if consenting adults wish to be involved in poly relationships, no one can stop them, so what's the point of making them remain illegal?
And if the genetic health of progeny were a key issue, women who were carrying DS fetuses would be aborted. Don't forget that inbreeding simply amplifies dominant genes, not necessarily only "bad" ones.
and now we have polygamy - we were warned that once same sex marriage was accepted, there would be no stopping polygamy. Or marriage with your sibling or dog for that matter
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/06/tlc-orders-polygamist-reality-show/?icid=main|canada-toshiba|dl5|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvsquad.com%2F2010%2F08%2F06%2Ftlc-orders-polygamist-reality-show%2F
Julie, "we" do not have polygamy (actually, polyamory is closer to the correct term). Only those who are interested in poly marriages would have it. And why should they not, if they are all consenting adults? Who else's business is it?
ReplyDeleteKeep that phrase in mind: consenting adults. Dogs do not qualify.
If the state does not have the right to determine who can marry, then who does? Certainly not religions as they have been unable to get any consensus at all on this subject.
ReplyDeleteAdult dogs would qualify...and who says they must be consenting adults?...children ought to have rights as well,no?...and if marriage is about loving and caring...well..dogs definitely qualify..or will..soon
ReplyDeleteWho in the world would want a second, third etc... wife or husband, all at the same time? With all that responsibility? What a glutton for punishment. Just thinking about all those children running around would drive me CRAZY.
ReplyDeleteTalk about your desperate housewives & desperate husbands nightmare sitcoms!
It is obvious I am not INTO that polygamy stuff or I should say what Lady Janus said actually, polyamory is closer to the correct term. I cannot speak for other folks. If anyone is worried about this polygamy stuff just make sure your voice is heard by voting for a candidate that represents your views. If your views are voted down just keep the faith & pray.
I would not like to see Fr. Tim Moyle force to marry two men, two women, three men & one woman or one man & three women or two dogs, cats or monkeys. I believe Fr. Tim does not need to worry about that. Unless a Pontiff is elected & this man of God turns out to have loss credibility in the real Catholic Church's Teachings.
As for folks saying if same sex marriage happens, there would be no stopping for polygamy.
Many folks at one time said if they allow mixed marriages in the Catholic Church then we will see a more watered-down Catholic faith.
As for that last statement of mine what do I mean? I do not have a clue I just felt like throwing that one in.
Have a great day!
Lina
Lina: You down to earth assessment of polygamy put a smile on my face. It also reminded me of a line I once heard from a comedian from "Just For Laughs"...
ReplyDelete"Polygamy! Sure! Then I could disappoint multiple women at the same time, while enduring PMS as a weekly event!"
(grin)
Fr. Tim
Lina, same sex marriage has already happened. And polyamory is alive, as well, just not yet legally enshrined. I do know some polyamors, and they don't know how you live in your stunted, sheltered, limited world. Still, they have no plans to force you to give up your world and make you live in theirs...why do you want to do that to them?
ReplyDeleteSee, here's the thing: you and others say they cannot imagine how others would do it, so you're determined not to allow them to do it. That's dog-in-manger thinking. Why not leave them alone to do what they want? They're not hurting you.
Anon, when a dog can read, demonstrate understanding of, and sign a contract, it can qualify. That's what marriage is, legally speaking.
ReplyDeleteNext idiotic excuse...?
Lady Janus, I do not have control what others say or do. Maybe I did not explain myself clearly.
ReplyDeleteI just stated that "I am not INTO that polygamy stuff". If you or anybody else likes it that is their choice. I know I am not force to do what they do. That is just plain silly.
I recall the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau once said: "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
Lady Janus that goes for me also. I have no business in your bedroom, Fr. Tim's or anybody else bedroom.
As for 'same sex marriage has already happened.' I know that Lady Janus. The word marriage has different meaning to different people. I happen to be Roman Catholic. So marriage to me is between a man & a woman. I will not apologize for that. It was the way I was raised & believed that it was the right way to go.
Nevertheless, I also realize that I need to be aware that my concept of the word marriage doesn't necessary reflect today society especially outside of the Roman Catholic Church faith.
After all, I do have an adult gay son and he lives with his partner in their own home. So I know a little about these partnerships. He does believe in God & I do love my son dearly. Furthermore, my son never once said to me I should leave the Roman Catholic Church or my faith. He respects our differences. He wants to be treated with human dignity & respect just like everybody else. He doesn't care what people say about him, he see it has their problem not his.
Lina
Lina: You are clearly blessed with a wise child, who himself is graced with a loving mother. Sounds like a great situation to me irrespective of the domestic arrangement for either of you!
ReplyDeleteFr. Tim
Lina, how can you say you're okay with someone else's choices when, in the comment just above that, you said, "If anyone is worried about this polygamy stuff just make sure your voice is heard by voting for a candidate that represents your views."
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something? Or did you not just advocate people to get their politicial representatives to take those choices away?
Lady Janus you said to me (Lina):
ReplyDelete"Am I missing something? Or did you not just advocate people to get their politicial representatives to take those choices away?"
Lady Janus I read many posts written by you. You are one smart lady. I do respect you. To answer your question, no I do not advocate people to take those choices away.
Polygamy is not an issue for me. In other words, it is not high on my priority list.
My marriage to my husband, taking care of a very elderly parent, my family, food, shelter, medicine, employment(enough money coming in to pay the bills), freedom to worship without fear being harass or killed are a few things that are important to me.
As for polygamy, I do not see this as being so important to me because you will not die if you do not have extra wives or husbands.
That may come across selfish & crass but that is my personal sentiments.
I believe we need to agree to disagree on this topic.
No hard feelings,
Lina
Okay, you've really got me confused, Lina. It's "not an issue" for you...but you're against it on the grounds that it won't kill someone not to have more than one marriage partner? You could actually say the same thing for merely one marriage partner -- you won't die without one. Some people thrive on celibacy! Just ask Tim.
ReplyDeleteSo it's not important for you. But it might be important to somebody -- as important to them as your one husband is to you -- and you are clearly not being harmed by it, so why do you oppose it? Why do you stand firmly in the way of someone else's happiness?
Lady Janus,
ReplyDeleteI got you confused that makes two of us.
You talk about polygamy & in the next breathe you talk about celibacy & Fr. Tim Moyle. Then you got this strange idea have this super magic power to control this polygamy thing. Are you in a deflecting mood?
It is a good thing I will be away because
you seem to be trying hard to put a guilt trip on me? It is not working, so please DO NOT flatter yourself.
I do not know if you are just being augmentative Lady Janus. I'm sure Fr.Tim will keep us in his prayers after all, it is his vocation & his blog site.
By the way,...whatever happened to the poster Reddog?
Forget about it, Lady Janus.
I have an idea why he doesn't post here on this blog.
Good-Bye!
Lina :)
Is there an ESL issue, here? About all I understood from Lina's last comment was, "guilt trip," and, "forget about it."
ReplyDeleteI don't do guilt. Not my flava. But for the other, consider it done.