Monday, June 29, 2009

Anti-Catholic, Communist, Discriminatory and Unoriginal

Those four words sum up the approach to "gay marriage" proposed by Catholic legal scholar Douglas W. Kmiec.

This post will not be an exhaustive article, but is meant to point out some severe defeciences in Professor Kmiec's argument: (1) Kmiec's approach is in defiance of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's requirement for all Catholics with respect to equating homosexual relationships with marriages in civil law; (2) the Kmiec "solution" of the state certifying any "couple" under the civil law is nothing more than the legalization of "free love" or "wives in common" proposed by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto; (3) the Kmiec approach is a reverse Luther heresy, Luther rightfully pointed out that non-Catholics can get married but wrongfully concluded that this meant that the State not the Church had ultimate authority over marriage, Kmiec argues that because the Church has ultimate authority over marriage that the State has no authority over marriage and that non-believers cannot be married; and (4) lastly and worst from the academic perspective, Kmiec's solution to eliminate legal marriage is unoriginal and he has yet to attribute the idea to any of the feminist legal scholars who have discussed this approach to legally recognized family relationships for 20 years.

The CDF states that: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." CDF Document on Homosexual Unions at Paragraph 5. Rather than emphatically opposing homosexual unions Professor Kmiec has proposed equating homosexual unions with marriage!

Here is an example of Douglas Kmiec equating marriage with homosexual relationships: "Instead, the state would give everyone -- gay or straight -- a civil union license and allow churches, synagogues, temples and mosques to say who can and cannot 'marry' within their individual traditions. Religious freedom, a bedrock constitutional value of like importance to equality, would also be a winner." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/opinion/oe-kmiec16?pg=1

Does that sound like "emphatic opposition" to anyone?

Kmiec's solution is also Marxist. Marx's solution in the Communist Manifesto to the family was a system of legalized "free love" or "common wives": "Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. "


In other words, Marx proposed the elimination of marriage and replacing it with some system of cooperation agreements. Legalized "free love." Is this not the civil union proposed by Kmiec, which would require the state to approve of any two individuals who wish to have a legally recognized sexual relationship?


The solution proposed by Kmiec is also discriminatory against non-believers. The Church teaches that marriage is part of the natural law and is an institution that is accessible to all men and women. Marriage is a religious institution, but it is not only a religious institution. A marriage between non-believers is still a marriage, it is not a sacrament. See CCC 1601 ("The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.")

The Kmiec proposal is an anti-Luther heresy. Luther proposed that marriage was solely a civil institution under the authority of the state. Kmiec proposes that marriage is solely a religious institution under the authority of Church. The truth lies in the middle. The Church has ultimate authority over marriage, especially sacramental marriage, but the state has a role to play as well to recognize valid marriages and to ensure that the legitimate rights of husbands, wives and parents are recognized. The premise proposed by Kmiec, that marriage is a solely religious institution is wrong from the start. Marriage is both civil and religious. To deny unbelievers the status of marriage, is a denial of a God given right and the natural state of marriage.

Lastly, Kmiec's solution is unoriginal. After reading some of his initial articles on the issue, I was reminded of a Weekly Standard article by Stanley Kurtz written for the August 2003 issue exploring the dangers of gay marriage. Mr. Kurtz's article pointed out that several of the initial supporters of eliminating marriage, Judith Stacey, Martha Fineman, Martha Ertman became supporters of gay marriage as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of eliminating marriage.

For example, according to Mr. Kurtz, Ms. Ertman has proposed eliminating marriage as a legal institution and replacing it with a system of contracts. Sound familiar? This is the Kmiec solution. Ironically, the different solutions to eliminate marriage proposed by these feminist women to liberate women have gotten little attention, but when proposed by a man, Kmiec, he gets space in the Los Angeles Times.

Most disturbingly, none a single one of these women has been mentioned by Professor Kmiec as an inspiration for his idea. Nor has he explained why his proposal is different from these women. A legal scholar should know better.

So, to sum it up the Kmiec solution is anti-Catholic, communist, discriminatory and unoriginal.

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization!

Not Islam. Which tried to destroy Western Civilization including grapes!

But according to the President of the United States in Cairo, our country, which is "not a Christian country" according to Obama, owes much of its success to Islam. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/05/obama’s-christian-muslim-double-standard-our-first-dhimmi-president/

A quick and brilliant breakdown of this foolishness from Rush Limbaugh:

"OBAMA: As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it could be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy, and places of peaceful contemplation -- and throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

RUSH: Okay. I know we're not supposed to criticize Obama's speech here. I know it's going way off the reservation here to do this. But, folks, that is outrageous. This is simply outrageous. It was absurd, in fact. Let's see. Where do we start here? "It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra." No. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. They were not Muslims. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. "Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation," Islam gave us these? No. "Recent research suggests that the compass may have been discovered by Central Americans, but if they didn't do it, the Chinese are then its discoverers. In either case, be it the Chinese or the Central Americans, the compass was discovered centuries before the advent of Islam."

Now, what am I supposed to say? I'm not supposed to say this stuff. Now, let's see, let's see. "Our mastery of pens and printing..." Has anybody ever heard of Gutenberg? I didn't know Gutenberg was a Muslim. "Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed..."? Are there Nobel Prizes for Medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed? "Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires..." Well, sorry, folks, but arches and spires predate the arrival of Islam by centuries. I mean, come on, folks. Arches? Anybody heard of Rome? He also talked about the great gift, "timeless poetry and cherished music." The only problem there is that music -- and musical instruments especially -- are forbidden in most Islamic traditions. And it should be unnecessary to have to note Islam's "religious tolerance" has been demonstrated. Okay, I'm... Take it away." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060409/content/01125108.guest.html

The learning of the ancient world was kept by the Church in her monasteries and the Renaissance was funded and inspired by the Church in Rome, hence the Italian title for this movement in human learning. Please check out Thomas E. Woods' book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" for a good review of the true protector and builder of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church and Her Spouse, Christ! http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244237951&sr=8-1