"And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"
-- Micah 6:8

"The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict."
-- American Bar Association Standard 3-1.2(c)

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
--Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

Friday, May 30, 2008

Liar

Not suprisingly, the new, liberal Democrat Governor of New York, David Paterson, is trying to shove homosexual marriage down the throats of New York's citizens, who have rebuffed efforts to allow it to be enacted into the state's positive law. Now NY will recognize homosexual "marriages" contracted in California. He stated, in part:

"We have a time-held and time-tested tradition honoring those marital rights. I am taking the same approach that this state always has with respect to out-of-state or marriages conducted in foreign governments being recognized here in the state of New York. I am following the law as it has always existed.

Excuse me, but bullshit.

As even the Lambda Legal Defense Fund has acknowledged in pleadings, New York in fact does NOT recognize "marriages" which are repugnant to morality or natural law:

[the] abhorrence exception requires an overwhelming social consensus that a marriage is patently repugnant to the morality of the community. Id. The exception is so narrow that, throughout the lengthy history of the marriage recognition rule, only polygamous and closely incestuous marriages have been held to meet its stringent criterion. Van Voorhis, 86 N.Y. at 26 (exception applies in cases "of incest or polygamy coming within the prohibitions of natural law"); Earle v. Earle, 141 A.D. 611, 613 (1st Dep’t 1910) ("the lex loci contractus governs as to the validity of the marriage, unless the marriage be odious by common consent of nations, as where it is polygamous or incestuous by the laws of nature").
In other words, NY will recognize proxy marriages, or common law marriages contracted elsewhere, even when NY herself does not allow such marriages. But when there are purported marriages that violate the fundamental concept of marriage (such as polygamy--trying to re-define marriage to include more than one man, one woman) or incest (trying to redefine marriage to include father-daughter, mother-son, or sister-brother couplings), NY has had nothing to do with such "marriages."

Homosexual "marriage" is of the same category: an attempt to re-define what marriage actually is, or put another way, the destruction of the commonly held notion of marriage that has perdured in the West for some 6,000+ years, and replace it with something else, all for the benefit of practioners of sexual abnormality that represent perhaps 1/10 of one percent of the population. That the idea of homosexual "marriage" is not in fact condoned ("odious" if you want to use the old-fashioned term) is shown by the people of New York's refusal to bestow the title "marriage" on such couplings, while being willing to allow homosexuals to enjoy certain civil benefits enjoyed by married citizens.

It reminds of Lincoln's aphorism: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

It's a nice try, but could it be these Dem leaders, like Paterson and Spitzer before him, advocate no-holds barred couplings because if there really are no limitations on how people couple, their own well-documented personal sexual immorality might seem less disgusting?

Just askin'.

2 comments:

A. nony mouse said...

Just wondering what evidence you have to support your assertion that marriages have purdured (a great word, btw) in the West for some 6000+ years?

I suspect that a little research will show you that there were only hunter-gatherer bands in the Americas 6000 ybp. Possible exception being the Incas - who are believed to have been strongly polygamous.

Likewise - no real civilization in Europe at that time. Major world civilizations 6000 ybp were Babylon, Egypt, Indus River, and China. Other possibles in Thailand, Ethiopia and South America.

Moving forward in time, you get the Greeks and later the Romans - neither of whom seemed to have much problem with homosexuality and homosexual relationships.

Finally - would you be so kind as to cite a source for "natural law" so that I can go look it up? Or does it just refer to what you believe because some preacher somewhere told you so?

Anonymous said...

I assume he means that 2,000 years of Christian principles embodied in Western Law have forbidden the oxymoron of "gay marriage," and before that for at least 4,000 years the Jews had no brook for it.

Even among pagan societies you can find no institution of homosexual marriage, even where you find some societies tolerating the practice itself.

Natural law has nothing to do with preachers or religion, it is simply the studied reflection on what constitutes the "good" for men.

Certain principles of the natural law are irreducible: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience (or beauty), sociability (or friendship), and the like. Natural law is simply the reasoned conclusions from these "first goods."

By a chain of such reasoning, which is too long to elucidate here, one ends up with the conclusion that since human sexuality is fundamentally ordered to reproduction, and since homosexuality can in no cricumstances be ordered to that end, homosexuality is violative of natural law.

There are other ways of reasoning to the same conclusion, but the fundamental conclusion, at least implicitly recognized by most pagan, and certainly by all religious societies, is that homosexuality is contrary to nature, i.e., not in accord with the right use of the sexual faculties.

Put another, cruder, way, the anus is designed as an exit, not an entrance.