Neither Friend of Court or Culture: Obama Asks Supreme Court to Undermine Marriage
It will be the first of many efforts to come. It marks the beginning of a burgeoning movement which has historic consequences.
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.
The institutions of government should defend marriage against those who would redefine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract.
When sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as the foundation of a right to marry- and those who oppose this edict of a new Caesar are characterized as being against the freedom to marry and equal rights - the revolutionary plan advances and the common good is threatened.
To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. To confer the benefits that have been conferred in the past only to stable married couples and families to homosexual paramours is bad public policy.
Theologians and Philosophers speak of ontology as the science or philosophy of being. For example, a rock is a rock and not a cabbage; a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Marriage is ontologically between a man and a woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family.
The enforcers of this new order, whether ruling from the bench or misusing their office in the Legislative and Executive branch, unchecked by any balance of power, have followed what the legal positivists have long proclaimed, "The law is what the courts say it is."
Christians must not participate in the destruction of the institution of marriage and the erosion of the social order built upon it. We must become what St. Josemaria Escriva once called "rebels of love": "Nowadays it is not enough for men and women to be good. Moreover, it is not good enough to be satisfied with being nearly. good. It is necessary to be 'revolutionary'.Faced by hedonism, faced by the pagan and materialistic wares that we are being offered, Christ wants objectors! - rebels of Love!" (The Furrow #128)
Not only does the Natural Law affirm marriage, the Sacred Scriptures and unbroken teaching of the Church confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. Of that there is no doubt. Those who attempt to argue otherwise in the various Christian communities are lying, ill informed or being disingenuous. They are also false teachers.
Catholic Christians must fully participate in and even now lead the defense of Marriage. After all, in the face of other Christian communities backing away from orthodoxy, our Church is the most vocal in the defense of marriage - and the family and society founded upon it. That means we will face the brunt of the persecution which will come. It has already begun. We need to be ready for it.
In his Christmas address to the Roman Curia, then Pope Benedict XVI pulled no punches. Many of the reports on the address in the main stream media were not only inaccurate, they were not journalism. Rather, they were propaganda. His entire address should be read by all Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and all people of good will.
He raised the questions we must take up affirming, "the question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself - about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human. The challenges involved are manifold. First of all there is the question of the human capacity to make a commitment or to avoid commitment."
"Can one bind oneself for a lifetime? Does this correspond to man's nature? Does it not contradict his freedom and the scope of his self-realization? Does man become himself by living for himself alone and only entering into relationships with others when he can break them off again at any time? Is lifelong commitment antithetical to freedom? Is commitment also worth suffering for?"
"Man's refusal to make any commitment - which is becoming increasingly widespread as a result of a false understanding of freedom and self-realization as well as the desire to escape suffering - means that man remains closed in on himself and keeps his "I" ultimately for himself, without really rising above it."
"Yet only in self-giving does man find himself, and only by opening himself to the other, to others, to children, to the family, only by letting himself be changed through suffering, does he discover the breadth of his humanity. When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child - essential elements of the experience of being human are lost."
In his apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Charity, Benedict XVI summarized the duty of the Catholic faithful in the current assault on authentic marriage: "Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself."
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church wrote in 2003 "The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose."
"No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."
To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. To insist with the police power of the State that we pretend otherwise does not serve the common good. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they create a new right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage.
Government has long regulated marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract. Heterosexual marriage, procreation, and the nurturing of children form the foundation for the family, and the family forms the foundation of civil society.
There is a new resistance movement and we must take our place within its ranks. We must become rebels of love.
- - -
Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.
Keywords: marriage, gay marriage, homosexual marriage, homosexual equivalency movement, marriage equality, Human rights campaign, Amicus brief, Friend of the Court brief, Obama, Hollingsworth v Perry, Department of Justice, Supreme Court, Deacon keith Fournier
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Attorney General approved warrant for Fox reporter's emails
- 'Journalism has been criminalized' Juan Williams declares
- Documents reveal US drone policy is scandalously indiscriminate
- Special Report from the Virginia Republican Nominating Convention: A Time To Choose - Life
- Lois Learner pleads the 5th. Was she the crook behind it or was she following orders from higher up?
- Sick of deception! Democrat threatens IRS with appointment of special prosecutor
- FOURTH OBAMA SCANDAL: Did HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicit funds for nonprofit group?
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?