By ABBY GOODNOUGH
The New York Times
Published: May 6, 2009
BOSTON — Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday minutes after the Legislature sent it to his desk, saying he had reversed his position because gay couples were entitled to the state Constitution’s equal rights protections.
“It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am,” Mr. Baldacci, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview. “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”
Yet gay couples may not be able to wed in Maine anytime soon. Laws typically go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns, which is usually in late June. But opponents have vowed to pursue a “people’s veto,” or a public referendum, in which Maine voters could overturn the law.
The opponents would be required to collect about 55,000 signatures within 90 days of the Legislature’s adjourning to get a referendum question on the ballot. If they succeeded, the law would be suspended until a vote could be held. Depending on how soon signatures were collected, that would be in November or the following June.
The Rev. Bob Emrich, a leader of the Maine Marriage Alliance, one of the chief opposition groups, said he believed the law would be overturned but not without an intensive campaign.
“It’s not automatic by any means,” Mr. Emrich said. “The proponents of changing the law and redefining marriage, they are very well funded, they have a great organization, and they’ve been at this a long time.”
Maine is the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage, and the bill’s enactment comes almost five years after Massachusetts became the first in the nation to do so. The other states are Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont.
The New Hampshire legislature gave final passage on Wednesday to a same-sex marriage bill, but Gov. John Lynch has not said if he will sign it. Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, has said in the past that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. Once the bill reaches his desk, he will have five days to act on it.
Mr. Baldacci announced his decision in Augusta, Me., about an hour after the State Senate gave final passage to the bill, which codifies marriage as a legally recognized union between two people regardless of sex. Under state law, the governor had 10 days to sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.
But Mr. Baldacci, who cannot seek re-election because of term limits, said he had spent considerable time researching the legal ramifications of denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry.
Mr. Baldacci earlier supported civil unions for gay couples, which are legally recognized and provide many of the state rights and privileges that marriage does. Civil unions are legal in New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont, but the latter two states are phasing them out after adopting same-sex marriage laws.(Editor's emphasis throughout)
Since Vermont became the first state to allow civil unions in 2000, gay-rights supporters have increasingly said they relegate same-sex couples to a separate and unequal category.
Mr. Baldacci said his past opposition to same-sex marriage stemmed from his Roman Catholic upbringing. Exploring his feelings on the matter — and listening to those of other Maine residents — was, he said, “very emotional, very much a sort of baring of the soul that you’re listening to and going through yourself.”
He described voters as “the ultimate political power in this state,” and said it was important for them to weigh in, too.
“I think they will see the reasoning that I had in regards to the issue,” he said, “but it’s their right to put their stamp on it.”
NOTE:
Tragically, Governor Baldacci not only failed to follow the Natural Law, he violated Traditional (orthodox) Roman Catholic Church teaching. This is particularly unfortunate since he is purportedly a member in good standing.
Catholic social teaching holds that same-sex "marriage" is not only contrary to the natural law, it is destructive of the "common good." The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex unions primarily because they contribute to the destruction of the nuclear family which is created in the Triune image of God (imago Dei). Moreover, Catholic teaching holds that the souls of those who engage in homosexual activity are in mortal danger left unrepented which applies to those who continue such relationships/unions.
According to Catholic teaching there can be no human "right" which is incompatible with the Natural Law including of course homosexual activity, homosexual "marriage" or homosexual "unions". Political figures who claim to be Roman Catholics in good standing engage in rank hypocrisy when they support or otherwise facilitate the passing of same-sex "marriage" legislation. Governor Baldacci should either have resigned (rather than sign the same sex "marriage" bill in Maine) or cease referring to himself as a Roman Catholic in good-standing.
The Roman Catholic Church has the duty to properly discipline wayward members--including excommunication if necessary--especially those who occupy high-profile political positions. The fact that none to date have been so-disciplined severely detracts from the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and the world.
Patently immoral behaviors, civil arrangements and public policy positions which are incompatible with the Natural Law have been deemed human or civil "rights" in the United States by both the Judiciary and the Legislative branches of government. This is primarily because human "rights" since the Enlightenment are ungrounded by anything other than temporary wants or desires--as currently expressed by those in power. Prior to the Enlightenment, human rights were grounded in the Natural Law. In the absence of the Natural Law human rights are fictitious that is, they are objectively non-existent.
A radical form of Secularism now controls the public square in the United States and much of the West meaning that the Natural Law has been replaced by a kind of tyranny of the temporary majority. Legal positivism in the courts has greatly contributed to this phenomenon of course. As a result, it has become impossible for any serious Roman Catholic person to hold political office in the United States without engaging in obvious hypocrisy.
For more background information see my essay: "What of Traditional Marriage?" HERE...
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Showing posts with label Homosexual "Marriage". Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexual "Marriage". Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Bird’s Eye View of the News
Atila Sinke Guimarães
November 17, 2008
Tradition in Action, original HERE...
'HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE' & DEMOCRACY – The people of California have already said NO twice to homosexual marriage. Nonetheless, a plot by the heads of the executive and judiciary powers of the State insists on legalizing it. After the first ballot in 2004 when voters upheld the ban on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court of California overturned that public mandate and ruled that an unnatural liaison between two persons of the same sex should be legal in this State. That decision was made by the Court on May 15 of this year and gave rise to a veritable flood of “legal unions” of this kind. Around 18,000 same-sex couples have “married” in California between June and November.
Frontally opposing the Court decision, on November 4, 2008, once again the electorate of California reaffirmed that marriage should be defined only as the union between a man and a woman. As soon as these results were announced, an orchestrated wave of protests started around the State.
No need to say that the Fourth Power - that is, the media - has given full support to these manifestations. Front page newspaper photos and television broadcasts focus on groups of supporters of same-sex marriage who are demonstrating up and down the State giving the impression there is a popular clamor favoring homosexuality. This is an obvious fabrication. The people of the State have already cast their votes and made their decision.
Entering the performance was Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actor-turned-governor who is championing the anti-democratic protest of the homosexuals. On November 8, 2008, referring to the approval of Proposition 8 banning “gay marriage,” he declared:
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
The pronoun “we” Schwarzenegger used means that the State’s First Power, the executive, will pressure the Second Power, the judiciary, to again undo the will of the people.
This confrontation puts us in an interesting political conjuncture. On one side we have two established powers, the government and the courts, supported by the Fourth Power - the general media - all working together to undo the will of the people, which, according to the democratic saga, is the sovereign voice that decides everything. Clearly, something has gone awry.
Demagogy and oligarchy
When St. Thomas describes the legitimate and illegitimate forms of governments, he lists democracy and its corrupted form, demagogy, as the two types of government by the people. He understands democracy as government by the many turned toward the common good of society. It becomes demagogy when the people - instead of seeking the best interests of society - are turned only toward their own pleasures. In this condition they can easily be fooled and elect a demagogue: one who flatters them, a story-teller, a circus performer, etc.
When the Saint studies the government by the best - aristocracy - he also points out its corrupted form - oligarchy. The latter is understood as government by those who are bad but have the means - force, money or influence - to impose their will and govern.
If we apply these theoretical distinctions to today’s political situation in California, we see that its people, in a moment of self-indulgence, elected a movie actor and body-builder as their governor. His unique public merit was to represent a robot-type terminator in a series of films. With the popularity acquired from playing such an unintelligent role, he was elected the political head of the State. It is quite difficult not to think of St. Thomas' designation of a demagogue.
But the indirect democracy in which we live has also some characteristics of an aristocracy. Supposedly only the best are chosen to the House of Representatives and the Senate; supposedly only the best are named judges in Courts of Law. When those men, however, use their delegated powers to promote what is against nature, against the common good and against the expressed will of the people, they become an oppressive oligarchy. Adding to the picture the power of the media - which does all it can to induce the people to follow its leftist agenda – only reinforces a situation of abuse of authority.
The dusk of democracy
After the Muslim riots in Paris in 2006, social scholars and political analysts here and there began to point to the virtual end of democracy in the West. Their reasoning is simple: When, following the coherence of its own principles, a regime assimilates into its bosom a negative force turned toward its destruction, its death is near.
In fact, the excessively liberal immigration laws of many European countries like France give any Muslim born within their borders the status of citizen. Then, so that the parents can raise their child, the father and mother can become citizens. So also the grandparents. Today many countries of Western Europe already have millions of Muslims who cannot be put out. Europe swallowed the force that will destroy it.
The 2006 riots in Paris constituted a landmark test to check the extent of Muslim strength. There have been others such as the world wide protests against a Danish cartoon portraying Mahomet, the general indignation shown over a few lines of Benedict XVI's Regensberg address interpreted as offensive to Islam.
In the United States the problem is not primarily immigration, in my opinion. The Latino immigration is mostly beneficial, turned not toward the destruction of the US, but to its growth. It brings a new blood full of vitality and a more Catholic approach to life to a Protestant-minded United States.
The factor that is producing the destruction of the US is its moral tolerance: free-love, contraception, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc. It is these moral aberrations which, like AIDS, are destroying the immune system of the country and setting the US on its pathway to death.
The recent issue of “homosexual marriage” and the positions taken by the executive and judiciary powers of the State of California seem to confirm that we are living in the last days of Pompeii.
NOTE:
Two points which the author makes in this piece are particularly noteworthy in my opinion. First, homosexual "unions" are contrary to the natural law. Second, such "unions" are not in the interest of the common good irrespective of whether they are desired by the individuals involved. Legitimate forms of government must be dedicated to insuring the genuine interest of the common good rather than a select group of individuals since government exists to assure that the Divine Will as codified in the Natural Law is carried out by the responsible social agents--in a representative democratic republic, the legislature, judiciary and executive.
Any government which--in the name of personal freedom--enacts into positive law that which is contrary to the natural law and the common good is illegitimate by definition. Such "laws" can never be sustained since they directly contribute to the disintegration of society. Any government which attempts to enshrine them will disintegrate sooner rather than later. History demonstrates that moral degradation always precedes disintegration of the governing system--hence the author's reference to Pompeii.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
November 17, 2008
Tradition in Action, original HERE...
'HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE' & DEMOCRACY – The people of California have already said NO twice to homosexual marriage. Nonetheless, a plot by the heads of the executive and judiciary powers of the State insists on legalizing it. After the first ballot in 2004 when voters upheld the ban on same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court of California overturned that public mandate and ruled that an unnatural liaison between two persons of the same sex should be legal in this State. That decision was made by the Court on May 15 of this year and gave rise to a veritable flood of “legal unions” of this kind. Around 18,000 same-sex couples have “married” in California between June and November.
Frontally opposing the Court decision, on November 4, 2008, once again the electorate of California reaffirmed that marriage should be defined only as the union between a man and a woman. As soon as these results were announced, an orchestrated wave of protests started around the State.
No need to say that the Fourth Power - that is, the media - has given full support to these manifestations. Front page newspaper photos and television broadcasts focus on groups of supporters of same-sex marriage who are demonstrating up and down the State giving the impression there is a popular clamor favoring homosexuality. This is an obvious fabrication. The people of the State have already cast their votes and made their decision.
Entering the performance was Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actor-turned-governor who is championing the anti-democratic protest of the homosexuals. On November 8, 2008, referring to the approval of Proposition 8 banning “gay marriage,” he declared:
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end. I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."
The pronoun “we” Schwarzenegger used means that the State’s First Power, the executive, will pressure the Second Power, the judiciary, to again undo the will of the people.
This confrontation puts us in an interesting political conjuncture. On one side we have two established powers, the government and the courts, supported by the Fourth Power - the general media - all working together to undo the will of the people, which, according to the democratic saga, is the sovereign voice that decides everything. Clearly, something has gone awry.
Demagogy and oligarchy
When St. Thomas describes the legitimate and illegitimate forms of governments, he lists democracy and its corrupted form, demagogy, as the two types of government by the people. He understands democracy as government by the many turned toward the common good of society. It becomes demagogy when the people - instead of seeking the best interests of society - are turned only toward their own pleasures. In this condition they can easily be fooled and elect a demagogue: one who flatters them, a story-teller, a circus performer, etc.
When the Saint studies the government by the best - aristocracy - he also points out its corrupted form - oligarchy. The latter is understood as government by those who are bad but have the means - force, money or influence - to impose their will and govern.
If we apply these theoretical distinctions to today’s political situation in California, we see that its people, in a moment of self-indulgence, elected a movie actor and body-builder as their governor. His unique public merit was to represent a robot-type terminator in a series of films. With the popularity acquired from playing such an unintelligent role, he was elected the political head of the State. It is quite difficult not to think of St. Thomas' designation of a demagogue.
But the indirect democracy in which we live has also some characteristics of an aristocracy. Supposedly only the best are chosen to the House of Representatives and the Senate; supposedly only the best are named judges in Courts of Law. When those men, however, use their delegated powers to promote what is against nature, against the common good and against the expressed will of the people, they become an oppressive oligarchy. Adding to the picture the power of the media - which does all it can to induce the people to follow its leftist agenda – only reinforces a situation of abuse of authority.
The dusk of democracy
After the Muslim riots in Paris in 2006, social scholars and political analysts here and there began to point to the virtual end of democracy in the West. Their reasoning is simple: When, following the coherence of its own principles, a regime assimilates into its bosom a negative force turned toward its destruction, its death is near.
In fact, the excessively liberal immigration laws of many European countries like France give any Muslim born within their borders the status of citizen. Then, so that the parents can raise their child, the father and mother can become citizens. So also the grandparents. Today many countries of Western Europe already have millions of Muslims who cannot be put out. Europe swallowed the force that will destroy it.
The 2006 riots in Paris constituted a landmark test to check the extent of Muslim strength. There have been others such as the world wide protests against a Danish cartoon portraying Mahomet, the general indignation shown over a few lines of Benedict XVI's Regensberg address interpreted as offensive to Islam.
In the United States the problem is not primarily immigration, in my opinion. The Latino immigration is mostly beneficial, turned not toward the destruction of the US, but to its growth. It brings a new blood full of vitality and a more Catholic approach to life to a Protestant-minded United States.
The factor that is producing the destruction of the US is its moral tolerance: free-love, contraception, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc. It is these moral aberrations which, like AIDS, are destroying the immune system of the country and setting the US on its pathway to death.
The recent issue of “homosexual marriage” and the positions taken by the executive and judiciary powers of the State of California seem to confirm that we are living in the last days of Pompeii.
NOTE:
Two points which the author makes in this piece are particularly noteworthy in my opinion. First, homosexual "unions" are contrary to the natural law. Second, such "unions" are not in the interest of the common good irrespective of whether they are desired by the individuals involved. Legitimate forms of government must be dedicated to insuring the genuine interest of the common good rather than a select group of individuals since government exists to assure that the Divine Will as codified in the Natural Law is carried out by the responsible social agents--in a representative democratic republic, the legislature, judiciary and executive.
Any government which--in the name of personal freedom--enacts into positive law that which is contrary to the natural law and the common good is illegitimate by definition. Such "laws" can never be sustained since they directly contribute to the disintegration of society. Any government which attempts to enshrine them will disintegrate sooner rather than later. History demonstrates that moral degradation always precedes disintegration of the governing system--hence the author's reference to Pompeii.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Friday, May 16, 2008
Roman Catholic Church Bears Responsibility for Growing Immorality
Yesterday's California Supreme Court ruling which overturned the ban there on gay "marriage" represents the next step of an ever deepening downward spiral in which traditional morality has been all but extinguished in the United States.
Over the course of the last four decades--which interestingly coincides perfectly with the end of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that ended in 1965, the "golden rule" ethic as perennially taught in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been effectively replaced by rank utilitarianism where virtually anything in the realm of human behavior can be justified. There no longer exist any moral absolutes (immutable moral norms) only temporary "values" reflected in choices which can be exercised by making use of sheer political/judicial power.
Regrettably it is now accurate to say that there is virtually no limit to what our society could eventually codify into law. In the past decade we have legitimized aggressive (preventive) war (a war crime by international agreement), torture of prisoners (another war crime), arbitrarily altered the time-honored definition of marriage in a way which is totally incompatible with the natural law and human anthropology and rendered increasingly larger segments of our population "expendable" because they are thought to possess lives which are unworthy of living.
In many respects it is the failure of the Catholic Church universal but particularly in the United States which is to blame for the despicable state we now find ourselves in. Had the Traditional faith and morals of the Catholic Church not been so radically altered in the wake of Vatican II, it would no doubt have been much more difficult for the entire moral fabric to have unwoven so readily in the US.
For example, no-fault divorce laws would have been much harder to pass and no doubt far fewer divorces would have been requested. Heterosexual pre and extra-marital sexual relations would likely have been much less frequent as well. Prior to Vatican II, homosexuality was greatly frowned upon among Catholics as being gravely sinful and incompatible with the natural law. It was considered a perverse disorder which was inherently anti-life; to be avoided in the interest of complying with God's will and the common good of society.
Pre-Vatican II, the Catholic Church openly and proudly taught that artificial contraception by a married man and woman was immoral because it separated the generative from the unitive parts of human sexuality--of course, non-married persons were not to be sexually active at all. The generative and unitive functions of marriage according to Catholic teaching were never to be artificially disjoined/separated meaning; that the couple was not to purposely impede the possibility of generating a child in the process of having sexual intercourse. Since there can never be any anatomic, physiologic or behavioral complimentarity between two individuals of the same sex, it is readily apparent that sexual activity of any kind between such persons cannot result naturally in the generation of a child. Therefore, according to Catholic teaching, it is morally wrong and always will be to engage in homosexual relations. While this may seem completely unbelievable to some, it is morally and rationally sound upon deeper reflection. This is in fact what well catechized Roman Catholics were taught and believed prior to Vatican II.
Prior to 1965 it would have been inconceivable for a Roman Catholic to imagine two persons of the same sex "marrying." It would have been recognized immediately as a non-starter. Their sexual incompatibility would have made such a thing preposterous--by definition. The fact that so many so-called "Catholics" now have no problem with same sex "marriage" is a testament to just how radically altered the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church really is.
While the teaching against artificial contraception-- which was affirmed in Humani vitae as recently as 1968 has never been formally rescinded it is completely ignored by the vast majority of Catholics (practising and lapsed). This is the truth and has been well documented by multiple sociological studies. As a result it is very difficult to object to homosexuality. Once the need to keep sexual intercourse (which should involve marriage partners only) open to the generation of life is abandoned, there is no logical basis on which to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Virtually any other combination of persons or even cross-species relations/"marriages" then become tenable and are simply a matter of taste!
The fact that over 50% of Roman Catholic priests among those less than 60 years of age in the US are reported to be homosexual is of great interest given the views of many "Catholics" on sexuality and same-sex "marriage" and the greater public at-large. If and until this horrendous problem is resolved in the Catholic priesthood, it is unlikely that the constant movement toward more and more bizarre sexual practices and living arrangements in this country will be halted or reversed. Since Traditional Roman Catholicism is essentially dead in the United States, that eventuality appears highly improbable.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Over the course of the last four decades--which interestingly coincides perfectly with the end of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that ended in 1965, the "golden rule" ethic as perennially taught in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis has been effectively replaced by rank utilitarianism where virtually anything in the realm of human behavior can be justified. There no longer exist any moral absolutes (immutable moral norms) only temporary "values" reflected in choices which can be exercised by making use of sheer political/judicial power.
Regrettably it is now accurate to say that there is virtually no limit to what our society could eventually codify into law. In the past decade we have legitimized aggressive (preventive) war (a war crime by international agreement), torture of prisoners (another war crime), arbitrarily altered the time-honored definition of marriage in a way which is totally incompatible with the natural law and human anthropology and rendered increasingly larger segments of our population "expendable" because they are thought to possess lives which are unworthy of living.
In many respects it is the failure of the Catholic Church universal but particularly in the United States which is to blame for the despicable state we now find ourselves in. Had the Traditional faith and morals of the Catholic Church not been so radically altered in the wake of Vatican II, it would no doubt have been much more difficult for the entire moral fabric to have unwoven so readily in the US.
For example, no-fault divorce laws would have been much harder to pass and no doubt far fewer divorces would have been requested. Heterosexual pre and extra-marital sexual relations would likely have been much less frequent as well. Prior to Vatican II, homosexuality was greatly frowned upon among Catholics as being gravely sinful and incompatible with the natural law. It was considered a perverse disorder which was inherently anti-life; to be avoided in the interest of complying with God's will and the common good of society.
Pre-Vatican II, the Catholic Church openly and proudly taught that artificial contraception by a married man and woman was immoral because it separated the generative from the unitive parts of human sexuality--of course, non-married persons were not to be sexually active at all. The generative and unitive functions of marriage according to Catholic teaching were never to be artificially disjoined/separated meaning; that the couple was not to purposely impede the possibility of generating a child in the process of having sexual intercourse. Since there can never be any anatomic, physiologic or behavioral complimentarity between two individuals of the same sex, it is readily apparent that sexual activity of any kind between such persons cannot result naturally in the generation of a child. Therefore, according to Catholic teaching, it is morally wrong and always will be to engage in homosexual relations. While this may seem completely unbelievable to some, it is morally and rationally sound upon deeper reflection. This is in fact what well catechized Roman Catholics were taught and believed prior to Vatican II.
Prior to 1965 it would have been inconceivable for a Roman Catholic to imagine two persons of the same sex "marrying." It would have been recognized immediately as a non-starter. Their sexual incompatibility would have made such a thing preposterous--by definition. The fact that so many so-called "Catholics" now have no problem with same sex "marriage" is a testament to just how radically altered the post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church really is.
While the teaching against artificial contraception-- which was affirmed in Humani vitae as recently as 1968 has never been formally rescinded it is completely ignored by the vast majority of Catholics (practising and lapsed). This is the truth and has been well documented by multiple sociological studies. As a result it is very difficult to object to homosexuality. Once the need to keep sexual intercourse (which should involve marriage partners only) open to the generation of life is abandoned, there is no logical basis on which to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Virtually any other combination of persons or even cross-species relations/"marriages" then become tenable and are simply a matter of taste!
The fact that over 50% of Roman Catholic priests among those less than 60 years of age in the US are reported to be homosexual is of great interest given the views of many "Catholics" on sexuality and same-sex "marriage" and the greater public at-large. If and until this horrendous problem is resolved in the Catholic priesthood, it is unlikely that the constant movement toward more and more bizarre sexual practices and living arrangements in this country will be halted or reversed. Since Traditional Roman Catholicism is essentially dead in the United States, that eventuality appears highly improbable.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)