Bob Schieffer's blind spot

This post from Deacon Greg Kandra's blog takes note of the surprising ignorance of veteran reporter Bob Schieffer of the coercion that's already taking place against those who don't support soi-disant gay marriage.

So if you've encountered growing support for the redefinition of marriage among your Catholic friends, you might ask them whether they know about it, too. Because this isn't a fight about freedom; it's a fight about coercion in support of a lifestyle, and making that coercion acceptable in the public mind.

But to heck with marriage! Immigration is the most pressing issue!

Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that Archbishop Gomez tells us how "immigration tests America's identity, and how it is 'the most pressing issue that we face in American public life."

In the light of today's refusal by the U. S. Supreme Court to validate the efforts of the American people to hold to the definition of marriage which the Catholic Church itself teaches, Archbishop Gomez' assertion seems downright silly. On every level — moral, political, cultural — the defense of marriage is far more important than giving illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" in the country they broke into.

One more reason not to give up

CatholicVote.org has the best take on things so far:

What a morning. Time to exhale. 

What you are reading in the news is not the whole story. 

Moments ago the Supreme Court handed down two very narrow decisions. Both of them were wrong. But the marriage fight is far from over. ...

In essence, the Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California. The Court ducked the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional – and most importantly, did NOT create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. 

States that have protected marriage and those that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped. 

The Court did disenfranchise millions of voters with its decision on Proposition 8. Five Supreme Court justices effectively dismissed the votes of millions of citizens who twice voted to protect marriage. Nevertheless, the record in California is now plain: the people voted to protect marriage, but reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law. 

What is left is a single decision by a district court judge that applies to two couples. The legal fight to clarify what happens next will be critical and will be heavily contested by defenders of marriage in the courts. Same-sex marriage advocates touting immediate statewide gay marriage in California are misleading the public. 

Today’s decision striking down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was limited to only those same-sex "marriages" already recognized in the states that allow same-sex marriage. 

Also, remember that other parts of DOMA protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage in other states. That portion of the law was not challenged and remains in force – and in some ways was strengthened by today’s decision. 

Thus, while today’s decisions were very disappointing, they do not represent a watershed moment for marriage as many are suggesting. Same-sex marriage advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a “Roe v. Wade” for same-sex marriage. 

We have a clear path forward to protect marriage and respond to these rulings, in Congress and in the states, and in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. ... 

The debate on marriage lives on and is up to us. 

Why Prop 8 should have been clearly upheld

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com made these points earlier today:

The justices had a simple question before them, and the answer is also simple when you abide by the written Constitution.

• First, marriage is not in the U.S. Constitution. 
• Second, the 14th Amendment, which is not about marriage but about race, and not about couples but individuals, does not apply to Prop. 8. 
• Third, the 10th Amendment recognizes states have powers that are not federal powers and that are not prohibited by the Constitution. 
• Fourth, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to each state, where a written constitution is the supreme law of the state. 
• Fifth, the California Constitution contains Proposition 8 as Article 1, Section 7.5. 

Therefore, Prop. 8 should have been upheld.

But we live in an era in which many believe the Constitution must be "living," by which they mean that parts of it which stand in the way of their desires must be discarded or ignored; and that parts which have never before been recognized as pertaining to a situation suddenly develop "penumbras" (a phrase used in the Roe v. Wade decision) in which vast new meanings can be found.

One more thing: by ruling that the plaintiffs had no standing although California officials had abandoned their sworn duty to defend Proposition 8, the Court has effectively nullified the power of the state initiative. A hostile Governor can now say openly to the people of his state, "It doesn't matter what laws you enact by initiative. My allies will get a judge to declare it unconstitutional, and then I and my government will refuse to defend it."

Good news: Prop 8 not struck down

From Anthony Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, about this morning's Supreme Court decision:

It is widely being mis-reported that the Court ruled against Prop 8. IT DID NOT! 

Rather, the Court said it could not reach a decision because California government officials refused to defend the law. So it did not rule on Prop 8's validity. 

In doing so, the Court also nullified the Ninth Circuit's ruling against Prop 8, which is a great victory in itself! 

So, the voter-passed Constitutional Amendment to protect man-woman marriage remains the law of the land in California, because only an appellate court can strike down a voter proposition statewide.

It would have been tremendously encouraging to have had the Court clearly affirm the right of Californians to defend the indispensable institution of marriage. We didn't get that. But for us troops on the ground, our orders stay the same: continue the fight to preserve marriage — in our parishes, in our families, among our co-workers and friends.

One brave woman

What a surprise!

The House's most prominent Democrat continues to pretend she's an "ardent practicing Catholic" -- and gets away with it:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday she supports same-sex marriage because her Catholic faith “compels” her to “be against discrimination of any kind.”
“My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that,” Pelosi said during her weekly Capitol press briefing.

Would it be so un-pastoral to issue a statement explaining how Ms. Pelosi has already excommunicated herself latae sententiae quite some time ago?

The kids are OK

From page 2 of this morning's San Jose Mercury News, an unexpected confirmation that marriage still makes a difference to children:

We can all sleep better at night. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are engaged to be married. [Pitt and Jolie have been "together", as they say, since 2005. - my note] ... The couple previously said they wouldn't marry until gay marriage was legalized nationwide, but have admitted to changing their minds in a recent interview. "And it seems to mean more and more to our kids," Pitt said in January.

Now, I don't know why it "means more and more" to their kids. Maybe the kids have finally realized that there's usually a big party when fabulously wealthy people get married, and they're starved for excitement. OK, not likely. Maybe it's because the kids are angling for a destination wedding in Bali. OK, not likely either.

Or maybe -- maybe it's because when all the shouting's over, there's something inside every kid that wants their parents to join themselves together in "the only institution that unites a man and a woman and any children who may result from their union."

Hey, could this be another example of what Al Gore meant when he told a roomful of students that they know things that their parents don't?

One to watch

There's a very interesting election to watch in the news: the initlal results are in, and New York voters have sent a shock wave through the Empire State's political and cultural landscape. And they may also have elected pro-marriage political newcomer David Storobin to their state's Senate.

The race in this heavily Democratic-registered district was supposed to be an easy one for Lew Fidler, a longtime progressive Democrat officeholder. But the National Organization for Marriage collaborated with the district's large Orthodox population to upset that supposition, focusing on the issue of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. Fidler was for it; Storobin was against it.

According to NOM, as of yesterday, Storobin had scored a tremendous upset, but was ahead by fewer than 200 votes, with absentee ballots yet to be counted. And therein lies something else to watch.

If this election goes like so many others, the post-election numbers will slowly diminish Storobin's lead, and finally replace it with a slim lead for Fidler, and that result will quickly be ratified by state officials. Remember progressive Christine Grigoire's first run for governor of Washington? Her conservative challenger, Dino Rossi, held a slim lead, as I recall; but boxes and boxes of "forgotten" and "mislaid" ballots were suddenly found, heavily supporting Grigoire. That included some 500 provisional ballots showing City Hall as the resident's mailing address. Despite these -- what shall we call them? -- anomalies, Grigoire was declared the winner. Washington courts turned Rossi's challenges aside.

If something similar happens this time in New York, it will simply mark one more stage on our very own Road to Serfdom. If it doesn't -- well, then I guess we might be hearing the whisper of a turn in the tide.

Archbishop Dolan hits the mark

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has issued a remarkably clear and brief decree (PDF here) about same-sex marriage. It is all the more remarkable among the pronouncements of American Catholic bishops (not to mention that blather factory, the USCCB) in that it is clear, and it is brief. Here's the money quote:

(2) No Catholic facility or property, including but not limited to parishes, missions, chapels, meeting halls, Catholic educational, health, or charitable institutions or benevolent orders, or any place dedicated, consecrated, or used for Catholic worship may be used for the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages.

Bishop McGrath, can we hope for a similar decree from you?

So what's the fuss about gay marriage?

Well-put here, from the Heritage Foundation:

Rather than a natural institution designed to bring the two sexes together around the mutual task of forming homes and raising the next generation of children, marriage has become in some locales a list of temporary bargains between adults that is meant to secure interests and benefits. The result is a less child-centered, duty-based, and future-focused institution. Redefining marriage continues a trend away from policies that focus social resources on children and long-term civil society.

A witty riposte to Apple from the Manhattan Declaration

UPDATE:

When I later viewed this video at YouTube, I was appalled at the nasty comments from the LGBTQ etc. side -- and the number of them -- and so I did what I swore I'd never do: I posted a YouTube comment myself. Don't know if it will be "accepted" by the powers that be, so here it is:

The LGBTQ etc. "community" wants only one thing: to suppress ANY form of objection, no matter how measured, to their lifestyle choices. Their agitation against the MD app demonstrates that very well. And since when is it "hateful" to call someone else's behavior immoral? Gandhi did it; MLK did it; the antiwar movement did it; and so did the gay movement. Did these all therefore "hate" their opponents? Should their "hateful" opinions have been silenced, too?

Gay activists know that if they can effectively intimidate and control the iPhone App Store, they can censor what iPhone users can see -- and that population is a pretty large and influential one.

We ignore this fight at our peril.

How gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage

The Purple Heart is a military decoration of venerable age in our still-young republic. It signifies that the wearer has been wounded in the service of his country.
Imagine, if you will, that you are a soldier who has received this decoration, and you are proud to wear it.
One day, a judge decides that it's unfairly discriminatory to award this medal only to those who were actually wounded, and decrees that it must henceforth be distributed to every person who has ever served in a branch of the armed forces, even to those who were discharged dishonorably.
Might you not feel that the distinction awarded to you for your sacrifice was now devalued?
Now imagine that the people react to this judicial decision by formally reconfirming the Purple Heart in its traditional purpose, not once but twice. On both occasions, judges declare this expression of the will of the people unconstitutional.
The next time somebody asks you "How could gay marriage possibly harm heterosexual marriage?" it might help to ask them if they've heard of the Purple Heart.