Blog

Read the full opinion here.

For God is, and must be, your comfort.... And he is a sure comforter, that (as he said unto his disciples) never leaveth his servants in case of comfortless orphans, not even when he departeth from his disciples by death; but both, as he promised, sent them a comforter, the Holy Spirit of his Father and himself, and them also made sure, that to the world's end, he would ever dwell with them himself. And, therefore, if you be part of his flock, and believe his promise, how can you be comfortless in any tribulation, when Christ and his Holy Spirit, and with them their inseparable Father (if you put full trust and confidence in them) be never neither one finger breadth of space, nor one minute of time from you?

Dr. J. Matthew Wilson spoke about President Obama’s relationship with the Catholic Church, from the cautious optimism of the USCCB in 2008 to the open contentiousness now.
Dr. Wilson described the USCCB’s outlook on an Obama presidency as cautiously optimistic because Obama had said that pro-choice and pro-life people should have a respectful dialogue instead of caricaturing each other’s positions. Obama even took down harsh rhetoric from his website. The USCCB of course knew that substantively Obama was not pro-life at all, but they felt hopeful about his overtures to civility. On other issues the USCCB largely agreed with Obama: immigration, health reform, and torture. And at that time Obama professed the true meaning of marriage.
Things unraveled quickly in the health reform battle. First, the USCCB asked for, but did not receive, an ironclad guarantee that there would be no funding of abortion. The USCCB wanted something stronger than existing law, and the pro-choice Democrats would not oblige. Because of this, the USCCB opposed the Affordable Care Act.
Then Obama “evolved” on the same-sex marriage issue, and has now become a standard bearer for changing the definition of marriage.
Add to this the battles with Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services. HHS denied renewal of funding for Catholic Charities programs assisting the victims of sex trafficking, because those programs refused to refer women for abortion. Then HHS defined the ACA’s required “preventative measures” to include contraception and abortifacients. Even liberal Catholics who had thus far defended Obama felt betrayed by the HHS’s clumsy handling of this situation. The HHS mandate caused a mass of litigation heading for the Supreme Court, and if the decision is unfavorable, the USCCB has pledged not to comply. The USCCB gave an uncharacteristically blunt statement that Catholics must have the courage not to obey the HHS mandate. Such an act of widespread, institutionally-sanctioned civil disobedience would be unprecedented for the Church in America. By the 2012 election even Obama’s overtures towards conciliatory rhetoric were gone. Obama’s campaign labeled Catholic positions on abortion, contraception, and religious liberty tantamount to a “War on Women.”
Dr. Wilson gave his prediction on what would happen if the Supreme Court upholds the HHS mandate. He thinks different dioceses may shut down their hospitals, which would be a major threat to which the Obama administration would need to respond. Dr. Wilson opined that liberals will launch a PR battle portraying the USCCB’s position as out of touch with the Catholic population, who overwhelmingly think contraception is ok. But there are weaknesses in this argument that Dr. Wilson astutely noticed. Many Catholics oppose the HHS mandate, because even if they think contraception is ok, they know the Church’s position and do not support the government forcibly requiring the Church to violate its conscience.
Dr. Wilson also related interesting facts about Catholic voting patterns. In 2004, for the first time ever, a Democratic presidential nominee did not win the Catholic vote, and John Kerry was a Catholic! In 2004 the Democrats were seen as hostile to religion. Democratic candidatesundefinedincluding Obamaundefinedtried to change that perception by speaking about their faith.
Dr. Wilson then delved into the details of Catholic voting patterns. The main determinant is religious observanceundefinedwhether the Catholic goes to Mass regularly or rarely. The observant Catholics were 25% less likely to vote for Obama. Among younger Catholics the gap was even larger: only 26% of young, observant Catholics voted for Obama. On the contrary, 43% of observant Catholics older than 60 still voted for Obama. Dr. Wilson explained that these older Catholics may feel strong cultural ties to voting Democrat.
For Latino Catholics, regular mass attendance is not a big determinant of voting. Latino Catholics seem to vote more based on economic and immigration issues than moral issues. Interestingly, Latino Protestants who regularly attend service vote Republican more.

No court yet has accepted any of the bases argued as justification for limiting "marriage" to its meaning of one man and one woman.  What ideas do you have for legitimate, rational bases that could uphold TX's ban on same sex marriage?

Last week's court order striking down TX's same-sex marriage ban turned on whether TX had proffered a legitimate, rational basis.  The court rejected the two asserted justifications for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples (1) it benefits children; and (2) it encourages stable environments for procreation.  The court reasoned that same-sex couples can be just as good parents, and that recognizing same-sex marriage would have no effect on heterosexual couples and their choices to marry or have children.  Read the court's opinion here.

My idea of a rational basis:  Recognizing same-sex marriage as part of the definition of marriage will result in less children being born in the future, and the State has a legitimate interest in promoting more births.  

This is how there will be less children born if same-sex marriage is considered marriage:  The traditional definition of marriage has two aspects that have been part of society's common understanding: (1) marriage is a perpetual bond between two people who love each other; and (2) marriage is a step taken by people who agree to or plan to have kids.  It's a common question to ask a married couple, "When will you have kids?" because that is (or at least was) society's understanding of marriage.  With same-sex couples, who cannot naturally have children, people will not assume that their marriage means they plan to eventually have children.  Accordingly, society's conception of marriage will eventually change (soon or in later generations) to considering marriage as just a bond between two people that love each other.  Expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will actually narrow the common understanding of marriage by deleting the kids aspect.  This will lead society even further down the road of marriages with fewer children.  

The same-sex marriage cases give governments the chance to take a public stance for the true definition of marriage in a way that does not demean people with homosexual orientation, but instead focuses on the legitimate reasons marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman.  Promoting childbirth is one of those legitimate reasons.