Marriage Unique For a Reason Blog:
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
.... Urging the Court to uphold DOMA the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”
USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”
The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”
... In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”
11 Comments
weak
Yeah and among others who have filed amicus briefs with the proponents of Prop 8 are the always fun and lovable Westboro Baptist Church folks. Ya'll are in appropriate company.
You know your in a battle with dark forces when the perverts boldly call out people of conscience.
Scalia was proved correct in his dissenting opinion in Romer when he noted "[Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.."
"...remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Amendment 2 is an "impermissible targeting" of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a "legitimate concern of government," and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"
Adding; "If it is rational to criminalize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct." in his reference to the 1986 SCOTUS holding that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
It is important to note that their are still laws on the books that outlaw sodomy in some 13 States. I imagine when the citizenry get their bell full of these perverts those laws will be re-constituted in all 50 States.
Scalia's logic about the appropriateness of criminalizing homosexuality allowing for the appropriateness of denying rights and protections was thrown out when the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to criminalize homosexuality, Randy.
And for those "13 states," those laws are unenforceable, even though they may still be "on the books." And I kind of think that the citizenry is starting to get their "bell full" of the LGBTQ community -- which is why they're slowly coming to realize that they deserve full and equal protection under the law.
Kudos to the USCCB for this to-the-point legal argumentation. Sexual orientation is not a class worthy of heightened scrutiny, and ssm is not a fundamental right. It's that simple.
BS, Garrett. Do remember that 32 states have handily banned gay "marriage". And what's really happening is that a backlash is beginning to form against the puling and whining of the gay community, especially now that the Boy Scouts appear to be considering caving in to them. People are getting good and fed up and the outcome won't be pretty. Perverts aren't equal to male/female couples according to basic natural law, and no amount of sloganizing and politically-correct flawed logic will ever change that.
Hey Turtle: We are here in YOUR company, so what's the problem with people of a DIVERSITY of views signing Briefs (which you label amicus) for a particular court case? What you write off as amicus is your opinion. And what the opposition to Prop-8 writes is amicus to us. Where's your argument?
Your side is giving us ample reason to develop amicus, then you complain of it. Anyone, in court, can argue the the opponent has amicus as a motivation. But amicus is not against the law. Amicus is a feeling.
"Yeah and among others who have filed amicus briefs with the proponents of Prop 8 are the always fun and lovable Westboro Baptist Church folks. Ya'll are in appropriate company."
You've got some doozies on your side too. I bet NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) is cheering your every move.
Thank you!!!! You made my day, Little Man. I believe you got amicus ( n. pl. a·mi·ci curiae (-mk)
A party that is not involved in a particular litigation but that is allowed by the court to advise it on a matter of law directly affecting the litigation.) and Animus (a usually prejudiced and often spiteful or malevolent ill will) confused. I wouldn't expect someone on your side to properly read an opposing view anyway.
It's 'amicus' because you are cus-sing out the other side, with animus, in an amicus brief.
I wouldn't expect you to see amicus briefs can be filed by either side, or that animus is not illegal. You think like a turtle, as expected.
I'm with the Bishops.