Maryland SB 119 Reflection I

I thought it prudent that my reflections of MD SB 119, "Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" should be broken up so that each post was short and focused on one or a few connected points. These reflections are points that came and still come to mind as I listened to and reflect(ed) on most of the oral testimony for and against the bill.

To start it off, it was interesting how the different religious people gave their points for or against the bill. The Unitarian gave valentines to the Committee Senators. The Black Protestant Ministers for and against sounded like Dr. King in how they started low and calm while ending up loud and energetic, while the Catholic Religious and Ordained were calm and collected.

The one thing that really bothered me was when a Catholic Sister in habit came up and defended the bill. The Religious read a statement from a Priest that couldn't make it. After looking around the internet, I wonder if it was Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND of New Ways Ministries (based in Mount Rainier, Maryland) of which I spoke before. She said that there was "debate" within the Catholic Lay Community about what to do regarding bills like this one.

I understand that there can be debate within the Catholic Community. It has been said that young people "'believe that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the mother of God, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and the need to be concerned about the poor are more important than teachings such as the need to limit the priesthood to men, the need for priestly celibacy, the church's opposition to artificial birth control and its opposition to the death penalty.'" However, instead of it being either/or, why can't it be both/and (please, please have a listen here; a good doctor reveals both good and bad). Catholicism is a big YES! about freedom unless it is to say "no" to "another 'no' that negates the dignity of the human person" (see after 1:53 here).

Further, I know that we moderns hate more than anything else the concept of authority, including many if not the majority of Catholics (unfortunately). However, Catholic Tradition, Scripture, and Vatican II assert that the Catholic Faithful are to be in unity with the local Bishop. In Maryland, as far as I understand it, the Archbishop of Baltimore is for upholding the real meaning of marriage in law. However, groups like New Ways Ministries have confused the faithful and divided us away from our Shepherd Archbishop.

Those in power know groups like New Ways Ministries can scatter the Catholic Flock, the Body of Christ. If they can get the Catholic Church to be divided, they can get what they want (Sor*os, Gat*es, Roc*kefeller, For*d, etc.); they pour in money to "Catholic" organizations (and politicians/political parties).

For those in power, the only morals are those that make it possible to get what they want (read Saul Alinsky). However, I believe that the Catholic Church reveals the truth that is given by the Holy Spirit. The Bishop should unite all the faithful together for all that is right. The wolves come to destroy that unity.

May we pray, worship, and publicly act as Jesus has called us to do through the one True Gospel. Amen.

My Maryland Senate Bill 119 (SB 119) Testimony

Yesterday, I was planning to give oral testimony against MD SB 119, but I didn't get to speak. There was a finite amount of time allotted for testimony, and there were too many that wanted to testify to fit the time (it would've gone well into the night after starting at 1P). Thank goodness I submitted my oral arguments in writing.

The written oral arguments that I submitted are below (except for my real name and other info removed). Note that the quotes below are linked to the source at the first (few) word(s) of the quote.

I'll be writing about some points that stood out for me tonight and tomorrow that hopefully will be published tomorrow here at WZE.

---

Testimony of [Gerry] for

SB 116, “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”

Hello, I am [Gerry], a husband and father of three children who lives in [a], County, District [#]. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about why I think this Senate Bill should be voted down.

First, before I talk about the bill, let me very briefly talk about marriage. One way to contrast the original and proposed definitions of marriage is to think about the differences between two types of jewelry, (1) a friendship chain with one heart attached that is divided in half and (2) a charm bracelet with two or more charms. The former illustrates that marriage has to do with the complementary of the sexes (“two become one”), while the latter is an arrangement of two or more people. The former has a definite physical orientation while the latter can describes any loving relationship of two or more people (brother/sister, aunt/nephew, sister/sister (convent of sisters?), three or more of varying sexes).

“Non-marital friendships are characterized by a union of hearts and minds; but marriage, being a comprehensive union of persons, extends this unity to the bodily dimension. For our bodies are integral aspects of us as persons, not merely our extrinsic instruments. And in coitus, a man and woman’s bodies unite much as a heart and lungs unite within an individual—by coordinating together toward a single biological good (here, reproduction) of the whole (here, the whole couple).”

The original definition does not depend on the fertility of the couple. “[Just] as a person’s stomach action retains its orientation to nourishment even when nourishment doesn’t occur (e.g., because of intestinal problems), so a man and woman’s [consummation] is still coordination oriented to the single biological good of reproduction even when reproduction doesn’t occur (e.g., because of ovarian problems)." Plus, the state shouldn’t go around asking people if they are fertile.

Now, I turn to the bill. In the California Supreme Court case that dealt with Prop. 8, it was concluded that procreation was not a rational basis for barring same sex couples from marriage. Theodore Olson, who argued for the same sex couples said, “’It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state. The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.’”

First of all, the right to marry has been tied to procreation. “[The] 2,300-year-old philosophical tradition, originating independently of such policy considerations (and of Judaeo-Christian influence), that similarly distinguished the uniquely comprehensive unions consummated by coitus [and tied to procreation] from all others. Indeed, the three great philosophers of antiquity—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle— [and others] defended this view amid highly homoerotic cultures.”

Secondly, the US constitutional freedom of association currently allows same sex couples to say that they are married. I know same sex couples who say that they are married and have not been arrested. The debate about this bill should not be about whether same sex couples can marry. It’s about state sanctification of and civil benefits for their relationship, while still excluding others.

At the end of the day, I believe that if the definition of marriage is legally rewritten in view of the US Constitutional Equal Protection Clause (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS) to simply include all freely associated relationships beyond this bill’s prohibitions, all associations will want the same sanctioned privileges. Marriage will become meaningless and could be dropped from state protection to make way for a sort of overall welfare state unless there is a clear limit to what marriage includes (while also reforming divorce laws).

Third, as one from [a] County, people know that children who are raised by their married natural parents have the best chance of making it in whatever positive ways they can, more reach adulthood, are most often the best citizens, more often stay out of poverty, and have fewer children out-of-wedlock than do children of other family arrangements. The State should protect these consummated marriages that have or may result in the creation of children.

(“[Gay marriage will] encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.

“Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree. They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically. Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.” From The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage).

I have two quick comments. First, it is true that there are same sex partners who adopt or artificially create children for themselves. However, these matters should be handled by adoption and surrogate laws but not marriage statues.

Lastly, even though a religious exception is included to protect “an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages”, who does that exactly include? Also, can a bed and breakfast (often someone’s private residence) or similar business be protected from lawsuits? How about protecting employees who don’t want to condone same sex marriages on the job?

Thank you.

Bibliography of sources

Beyond Gay Marriage

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/040223a.html

Unitarians for Polyamory

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/19/unitarians-for-polyamory/

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage; http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/feb/040223a

Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2316

Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1396

Does Marriage, or Anything, Have Essential Properties?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

New Jersey Senate Kills Gay “Marriage” Bill

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jan/10010711

---

The following were quotes that didn't make it to the testimony due to time constraints.

(1) Prior to the vote [in the NJ Senate of S1967, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act"], Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement.  "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain. 

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.  Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."  

(2) Accordingly, in 1999 they created an organization, Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA), with the avowed goal of making Unitarianism the first denomination to endorse polyamory.

(3) The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [discriminatory interracial] laws was to enforce racial purity [of progeny from interracial marriage], an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17^th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science” when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.⁶ In Loving, for example, the statue overturned, SB 219, The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, was the product of the eugenics movement.

(4) Spouses and same-sex "partners" are not taxed when one dies and the sisters have attempted to have the new laws interpreted to allow them to enjoy similar exemptions.

“Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’” Blog Day

Choice always requires an object since there are always two things to choose between. In any case, what do humans for choice "mean when they say 'choice'"?


Just one thing to add for those who think men have no room in the abortion debate: countless males are aborted too. Men certainly have a say in the choice to kill or support preborn males.

(This post was updated 21 January 2011 at 4:58 pm EST.)

Interesting New Conservative Action Committee in Maryland

Since craigslist has supposedly changed its ways and is now off (one of) my boycott list(s), I went looking for and found one of those fire emergency ladders for my kids.

When I went to pick it up at the seller's house, I saw a Murphy sticker (for MD governor) on their front door. After paying for the ladder, I said, "Sorry about Murphy; I voted for him too."

Then they said something like, "Did you hear about the new conservative group that's forming to elect conservative, not just Republican candidates?"

"What, you mean not like Ehrlich?", I said.

Well, they gave me a flyer for registration for a MDCAN conference that's coming up.

From the flyer:

"Frustrated with last November’s election results in Maryland?"
"Weary of one-party rule that threatens our livelihoods?"
"Ready to re-build electoral politics from the grassroots up?"
"Then turn your frustration into ACTION, and join fellow conservatives in Annapolis to chart a new course for Maryland!"

Definition of "conservative" from their website (and here):

"We are assuming that conservatives come in all stripes (and from all political parties) and are not just fiscal conservatives, but support the US Constitution including especially the second and tenth amendments, respect the sanctity of life and support traditional marriage, respect the law on the question of immigration, wish to reform our education system, and are ready and willing to defend our great Nation against any and all threats to our national security." (emphasis added)

I hope this action committee works some good news!

Fr. Barron Spot On with St. Thomas More and the CofE

Below is Fr. Barron on "St. Thomas More and the Bishop of Rome". This is a follow-up post to a previous post of mine here.

With all due respect, I wonder if the Queen Mother of the Britons wishes she could convert to Catholicism (from the "Church of England" -- CofE). Does she recognize the post-Christian direction of the ecclesial community she oversees?

Well, here is Fr.

Porn Still Rapes the Mind

Charlie Sheen Rampage Tied to Smut Addiction Says Expert
White Ribbon against Pornography Awareness Week - October 31 to November 7
Porn - The Most Dangerous Threat in the Culture War, Says LifeSite Editor
(All articles from Lifesitenews.com)

As long as porn and contraception are widely available and/or legal, women and children will be worse off since men will have the opportunity to view them more and more as objects and products of conception (born and preborn) to divorce and discard (I have seen this in my experience).

May God have mercy on us all.

Atheists Respectable or Not

Are Atheists respectable or not?

I commented this (see below) on a First Things On the Square article with no response (on many sites, I am just ignored: no one will be ignored on this blog).

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

So what is it?

All One Needs to Know About Politics

All one needs to know about politics can be thought to come from A Man for All Seasons (it's one of my favorite movies; I don't do favorites lightly). St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen, knew that no one was above the law. He also knew that law was imperfect since it was written by men, especially if the law was disregarded or interpreted away.

If a law seems to be or is in fact wrong, it must be changed, not trampled underfoot alone or in the company of other laws.


The precedence of previous laws must be obliged. However, natural law must be upheld as its underpinning.


Finally, the oath that public officials take are not merely words but binding tethers to the path of an official's destination for the benefit of society and its tradition.


Officials cannot function on the will-to-power but must be grounded in the path toward the common good: otherwise moral, political, and ethical chaos ensues.

For the U.S., "And for the support of this Declaration [of Independence of the USA], with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."