You Big Mouth, You!

Bigwig over at Silflay Hraka bought the book I quoted (via on-line sources), and posts a nice graph of post-war resistance in the British sector of Germany. If I count correctly, 81 attacks on Allied personnel in the 15 month period covered by the graph. It’d be interesting to turn it into a stacked bar graph, showing all incidents, monthly. Wire cutting seems to have been the most frequent. Werewolves, or scrap dealing, just as in Iraq.

Hey, you know, this is a really smart guy. Put him on your daily reading list.

A recent post of mine about gay marriage has gotten a lot of views and some linkage. In summary, I felt that there was no legal ability on the Federal level to address the issue. It is a state issue, and each state will address it differently. I also discussed marriage law issues that go along with civil recognition of same-sex marriage.

Much of the Net discussion about this issue has also included the Vatican’s recent pronouncements, and President Bush’s statements at his last news conference.

I’m not surprised at the reaction to these statements. I’ve come to expect it from the liberal media and the loony left. It still amazes me, however, that those who object are so ready to deny to others rights that they insist upon for themselves.

Let’s take the President’s comments first. He was asked a question, and he answered honestly and forthrightly. Whether you agree with him or not, he continues to have the same rights as all Americans under the First Amendment. In addition, just as Presidents and non-politicos before him, he has the right to try to enact laws concerning subjects he has strong beliefs on. It’s the American way of governance. In my original post I state that I don’t believe it will be found Constitutional, but that is the risk taken with any law enacted in this country. It is subject to judicial review, and can be overturned by the courts. It is also subject to input from the voters during and after the enactment process. That’s the way things work. Checks and balances.

If you believe polls, they suggest that civil recognition of same-sex marriage is not all that popular a topic in America. It is a property rights issue that affects a small minority of the people, and the President has a lot of support in this matter. My view continues to be that it is not a Federal issue and that, if states wish to recognize same-sex marriage they ought to be prepared to thoroughly revamp their entire set of marriage laws.

On to the Vatican’s statements. The Roman Catholic Church teaches faith and morality. It makes clear statements on issues from its perspective and may call upon those who practice its faith to follow those teachings. That’s what a church does, any church, be it the Roman Catholic, Baptist, or Mormon. A church should be a clear leader when it comes to determining morality.

Churches should be clear on their moral teachings. Churches should be different, else why have more than one. The Roman Catholic Church has the basic human right, and the right under the Constitution of the United States, to call upon its members to follow its teachings. As does the Democratic Party or the Rotary.

You can be a Catholic and not follow the teachings of the Church. The Church allows for disagreements of conscience in most issues. There is a clearly defined set of beliefs, however, with which no Catholic may disagree and consider themselves in good standing with the Church. That, again, is as it should be. A church should stand for something, and different churches will have differing moral and faith issues. That’s why the Roman Catholic Church is not the Baptist Church, and so on.

The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage begin with the belief that the first purpose of marriage is procreation. Anything of human free will that interferes with that can make the marriage invalid or place people into sin. Entering into the sacrament of marriage without the intent to have children is one of the grounds for annulment in the Church. Sex outside of the sacrament of marriage is a moral error, a sin. That is the basis for all Church teachings regarding sex and marriage. You may only have sex within a sacramental marriage, and a sacramental marriage is for the purpose of having children.

A celibate gay can be a Catholic in good standing. Anything other than that violates the Church’s moral teachings. Violations of morality are sins, and sins are evil. If you don’t like it, don’t be a Roman Catholic. You can be a sinner and be a Catholic; we all are. But never, ever expect that the Church will not call what it sees as a sin anything else. If you don’t like being called a sinner, either repent and reform, or find another church that believes that your actions are moral.

The Roman Catholic Church is engaged in the salvation of souls. It will not succeed in all cases because people have the free will to reject salvation. But it must try, and in order to try, it must make its teachings known. If you don’t like them, you are not forced to follow them, nor are you forced to be a Catholic. Being a Church of sinners, its leaders will make mistakes. That does not eliminate the Church’s responsibility to teach morality, nor does it invalidate automatically any and all teachings.

In the United States, the land that pluralism created, the views of the Catholic Church don’t carry much weight. That is the way our legal system works. We will never be a theocracy. The Church may lobby lawmakers just as the Sierra Club or the Freedom Forum, and may instruct its members in legislative bodies in the same manner that trade unions or political parties do. That is our way. We should celebrate that the Church can do this, not act as if it is an abomination in our political system. And, when our lawmakers follow their consciences, and practice their strongly held beliefs, we should celebrate as well. Better a believing Catholic that a bought and paid for rep of the Teamsters or Enron.

I’ve talked about this issue in the comments of other blogs, and thought it was time I opined here.

Like so many things in life, passionate beliefs do not an argument make. Each side on this issue feels its beliefs are self-evident and the others are just so very wrong. The reality is somewhere else.

The government’s involvement in marriage is the legal recognition of a contract between two people. Period. Governmental recognition of marriage occurs on the state level. Federal involvement in the matter is spotty at best and normally follows the states’ leads. In 1998, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a significant margin in Congress and signed into law by then President Clinton. It forbids the Federal government from recognizing same-sex partnerships. That is the first major intrusion by the Federal government into marital law as it applies to what is a marriage.

Now, recognize that there have been many intrusions prior to this, and after this. Any Federal law enforcing state support orders, the banning of polygamy, the judicial decisions that a husband has no say over his wife’s pregnancy are all examples of this.

The government’s interest in the legal recognition of these relationships revolves around property issues. Inheritance, support, all that money stuff that married people never think about under the worst happens. Who gets the back 40 acres when one of Susie’s two moms dies? When Ted and Joe break up, who pays for little Susie’s braces? Ann put Jane through medical school then Jane left her for some slut of a nurse. What should Ann get for all her years of sacrifice? Legalizing gay marriage at the state level is not as simple as removing all reference to the sex of partners in marriage laws. Many states explicitly recognize mothers are first in line for child custody after a separation or divorce. In a same-sex marriage, this is an issue to be addressed, either there are no mothers, or two. Child support, when neither party is the sperm donor, is another.

What I’m suggesting is that the laws involved will need a thorough review and recrafting to allow for same-sex marriage. It can be done, but it should be a process, and in the end every person in a marriage should have the same protections, same rights, and same responsibilities. This should equalize some of the existing unfairness in marriage laws, such as the presumption that the mother is the first choice for child custody, or that the male partner should be the person paying alimony or support.

At the State level, though, marriage laws are so very different. Different states have differing ages of consent, as low as 12 with parental permission in one state, differing standards of blood relation allowed to marry (first cousins, second cousins, etc.), and the laws concerning divorce vary hugely from state to state. The entire notion of “common-law” marriage differs by state. I can recall questioning a widow in a workers comp death about where she and her male partner had lived, in an effort to find a state that allowed common-law marriage so that she could receive death benefits though she and the deceased had never been civilly married.

Obviously a Supreme Court decision could legalize same-sex marriage nationally, though where they would find the ground for it is not so apparent. But the details would change from state to state, I suspect, just as they currently do.

Is it a Federal issue? I don’t think so. I think it is very firmly a state issue under our constitution.

Do we need any sort of amendment to fix that? That’s not really what the amendment process is for. We tried to do that with Prohibition, a state and local issue, and look at that mess.

Yet, I do believe that free people should be able to make free choices, and that those choices should be protected by law. I see no legal reason to ban same-sex marriage, but strongly support a detailed revamp of marriage laws in any state that is going to legalize this. Don’t go off er… half-cocked on this issue, because if the courts are left to settle issues that were not covered in statute, we will regret it later. Write good law, clear and equally protective law, and do not let enthusiasm for a popular issue rush this into place.

George Bush and the Roman Catholic Church believe that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. This is a matter of faith and morality. Sometimes morality is codified in law; sometimes it has no place in law. Right now, right this minute as I write this, the Constitution of the United States does not involve the Federal Government in this matter. It is possible, even likely, that any statutes at the Federal level, including the Defense of Marriage Act, would be found by the courts to be in violation of the Constitution and that civil recognition of marriage is an issue reserved to the several states.

The Pope and George Bush have every right under our laws and our beliefs to state their views of same-sex marriage. Americans who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong have every right to say so, and to work for laws that codify that belief. Those laws may not be constitutional at the Federal level, and not constitutional in several of the states.

The reality is that George Bush cannot affect this issue in any meaningful way. Accusations of bigotry against those people who do not believe in same-sex marriage are spurious and generally unsupportable. This is an issue that affects a small proportion of our population, is completely new to our society, and requires major social and legal changes in the way things are done.

Slowly and surely it is being addressed. Insurance companies are changing their policies. Various localities are providing benefits for same-sex partners of employees. It is happening, and progress is being made.

Despite the passionate rhetoric, this is not a basic human rights issue. It is a money issue. Same-sex partnerships abound in the community. They just don�t have the civil recognition of their union, and the legal property rights that go along with that. There are ways around this; contracts and agreements of all sorts. Same-sex partnerships lack only the unplanned and unthinking legal enforcement of property rights that conventional marriages have. In other words, same-sex partners can solve most of their issues with pre-planning, and traditional couples can go along without any planning in the joyful knowledge that the state has provided a solution for them. Which, of course, they shouldn’t do, but, hey, if you are marrying your twelve year old first cousin�

UPDATE: An additional post on this subject, discussing the Vatican and President Bush is here.