defending marriage at the supreme court, doma_ justice ginsburg, marriage is different than milk -...

7/30/2019 Defending Marriage at the Supreme Court, DOMA_ Justice Ginsburg, Marriage is Different Than Milk - Google Groups

1/3

3/29/13 5:efending Marriage at the Supreme Court, DOMA: Justice Ginsburg, Marriage is Different than Milk - Google Groups

Page ttps://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/aqClKasjqaM/nhMphpdim2YJ

Google Groups

Defending Marriage at the Supreme Court, DOMA: Justice Ginsburg, Marriage isDifferent than Milk

Ken Blackwell Mar 28, 2013 8:12 A

Posted in group: Groundswell

A good and thougthful piece.

efending Marriage at the Supreme Court, DOMA: Justice

Ginsburg, Marriage is Different than MilkWhen sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as providing a foundation for a new civilright to marry, the real common good is placed at risk. When those who oppose this mistake are routinelycharacterized as bigots, overt persecution of the Church is close at hand

Deacon Keith FournierCatholic Online: http://www.catholic.org/Inside: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=50301&page=1

arriage has been reduced to another commodity. In an age when children can be manufacturedand grown in a surrogate when wanted - while millions are being aborted at will because they are not

anted - "Civil Rights" are being manufactured by the agencies of the civil government. They aremultiplying while the real rights, the fundamental human rights, endowed upon us by God, are beingtaken away, one after another.WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, US v Windsor, the secondMarriage case in two days, was heard by the Justices of the US Supreme Court. When the Court granted

review of this case last year on December 7, 2012, it agreed to hear its primary question,"Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment's guaranteeof equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under thelaws of their State"The Supreme Court, on its own, then directed the parties to "brief and argue the following questions:Whether the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutionaldeprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groupof the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case." The Supreme Courtappointed Harvard law Professor Vicki Jackson to argue the standing issue.So, like the case heard the day before, Hollingsworth v Perry, the legal doctrine of "standing" loomedlarge in prehearing speculation. The Obama administration refuses to enforce DOMA. So, a group

called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group was formed to defend DOMA. They hired legal counsel todo so.The facts. The Windsor case involves two women who lived together in a lesbian partnership for fortyfour years. They were civilly married in 2007 after Canada granted legal equivalency betweenhomosexual or lesbian partnerships and authentic marriage between one man and one woman. Canadaredefined marriage by legislative Fiat in the Civil Marriage Act. This legislation followed years ofudicial activism by the homosexual equivalency movement, province by province, changing the

definition of marriage.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=50301&page=1http://www.catholic.org/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=50280http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=50301&page=1http://www.catholic.org/


2/3



One of the women, Thea Spyer, died when the couple lived in New York State which recognized theirlesbian partnership as a marriage. The Federal Government of the United States did not recognize EdithWindsor as a spouse for purposes of calculating federal estate taxes. That is because the Defense ofMarriage Act (DOMA), which is Federal law, recognizes marriage by definition as solely between oneman and one woman.Thea Spyer left her estate to Edith Windsor. The size of the Estate triggered a Federal Estate tax of$363,000.00. Edith Windsor filed a lawsuit asserting that she would not owe the money if she had

married a man. So, one of the interesting twists in this case is that the Federal Estate tax is now beingused as a tool in the overall effort to redefine marriage in the United States.The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by large majorities in both the House andthe Senate. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. For purposes of federal law, which includesFederal Estate Taxes, DOMA defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Up untilFebruary of 2011, DOMA was defended, whenever it was challenged, by the Federal Government. Thatincluded the Clinton and Bush administrations.Attorney General Holder announced that President Obama had decided it was unconstitutional anddirected the Justice Department to no longer defend it. That is what led to the formation of the"Bipartisan legal Advisory Group" which stepped in to defend it as this case wound its way through thevarious Court cases filed against it. This case became the one the Court chose to determine whether this

Supreme Court will decide that DOMA violates the Constitution.Most observers of the argument on Wednesday, unlike Tuesday's argument, do not expect that the Courtwill use the standing issue to keep this case from being used to change the legal status quo concerningDOMA. The questions from the Justices indicate they may be ready to strike DOMA, even if fordiffering reasons. Some seemed to indicate that marriage is properly a State issue and may strike downDOMA based upon that premise. Others seem ready to redefine marriage - and to use this case to do so.Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed willing to use the Federal Estate tax as a reason to redefine the institutionof Marriage. Among her several comments, and the one which caught the imagination of the mainstream media, was her sarcastic analogy between marriage and milk. She opined concerning theemergence of "two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

Justice Ginsberg, marriage is very different than milk.Sadly, marriage has been reduced to another commodity in our culture. In an age when children can bemanufactured and grown in the body of a surrogate when wanted - while millions are being aborted atwill because they are not wanted - "Civil Rights" are being manufactured by the agencies of the the civilgovernment. They are multiplying - while real rights, fundamental human rights, which have beenendowed upon us by God, are being taken away, one after another.

When sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as providing a foundation for the civilgovernment to manufacture a new civil right to marry, the real common good of society is placed atrisk. When those who oppose this mistake are now routinely characterized as bigots, overt persecutionof the Church is close at hand.

True marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is arelationship defined by nature and protected by the natural law that binds all men and women. It findsits foundation in the order of creation. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they create aright to marry for those who are incapable of marriage.The institutions of government should defend marriage. Government has long regulated marriage for thetrue common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order toensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract.If the Supreme Court becomes the tool by which marriage is redefined the precedent established will


3/3



leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute a marriage. To limit marriage to heterosexualcouples 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 marriedcouples and families to homosexual paramours is bad public policy.Theologians and Philosophers speak of ontology as the science or philosophy of being. For example, arock 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.Those who claim that this is all a matter of tolerance are the most intolerant. Notice how intolerant theyare of people who, though respecting the dignity of every person including homosexuals, also insist thatmarriage is what it is. This will only worsen in the days ahead. The "Equal protection" argument will beused as a weapon against the Catholic Church, indeed any Church or religious body which will notcomply with the States new civil order.Christians must not participate in the destruction of the institution of marriage. The Sacred Scripturesand unbroken teaching of the Church confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. Of thatthere is no doubt. Those who attempt to argue otherwise within the various Christian communities are

being disingenuous. They are also false teachers.Catholic Christians must lead the defense of Marriage at every level. Our Church is the most vocal and

offers the clearest defense of marriage - and the family and society founded upon it. That means we willface the brunt of the persecution which will come.In his apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Charity, then Pope Benedict summarizedthe duty of the Catholic faithful when confronted with an assault on authentic marriage: "Marriage andthe family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation oftheir 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 these words in 2003, "TheChurch's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evidentto right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just anyrelationship 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 manand a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward thecommunion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate withGod in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."These words are the truth. Pray for the Justices of the US Supreme Court. Pray for Marriage. Pray forthe United States of America. Get ready....

defending marriage at the supreme court, doma_ justice ginsburg, marriage is different than milk -...

Documents