Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

In what way does this ruling indicate tyranny? This is an expansion of rights, not a limitation of rights. Churches may still ban marriages in their institutions.

For now. Just like states were still free to privilege traditional marriage after Lawrence v. Texas... for a decade. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I assume the majority equated sexual orientation with race. So how is the Catholic Church any different than segregationists now? There are already efforts afoot to "Bob Jones" Catholic institutions for upholding the Church's ancient doctrine.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Nobody has a "right" to healthcare because one person's rights cannot impose a burden on those of another. Anyone can seek treatment, but a doctor has the right to decline a patient and an insurance provider has the right to decline coverage. Free markets include the right to not participate in those markets if you don't want to.

Nobody has a "right" to state-sanctioned marriage, either. Not straight people, gay people, or any kind of Caitlyn Jenner halvsie. A federal ban on gay marriage (or "traditional marriage" for that matter) would be just as out-of-bounds as a federal endorsement thereof.

I don't see it as a federal endorsement of gay marriage. It's an endorsement of equal protection. If your state is going to have laws endorsing marriage, you can't allow it just for some couples.

Regarding health care, it's tricky, I admit. But the Reagan-era law guaranteed people care at emergency rooms. That does impose a burden on others. Why not take care of the needs through a more comprehensive plan?

 

[wizards8507]

Regarding health care, it's tricky, I admit. But the Reagan-era law guaranteed people care at emergency rooms. That does impose a burden on others. Why not take care of the needs through a more comprehensive plan?

I don't have the time to go into the principled argument "why not," so I'll stick with the practical argument: the government sucks at doing stuff, simple as that.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

For now. Just like states were still free to privilege traditional marriage after Lawrence v. Texas... for a decade. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I assume the majority equated sexual orientation with race. So how is the Catholic Church any different than segregationists now? There are already efforts afoot to "Bob Jones" Catholic institutions for upholding the Church's ancient doctrine.

Aren't churches free to ban interracial marriage? Facing criticism is not the same as facing prosecution.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't have the time to go into the principled argument "why not," so I'll stick with the practical argument: the government sucks at doing stuff, simple as that.

Okay. I would argue that the free market sucks at doing health care.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Aren't churches free to ban interracial marriage? Facing criticism is not the same as facing prosecution.

No, they're not "free" to do so. At least not without losing their tax exempt status. Most churches operate on very narrow margins, so losing tax exempt status would force them to shutter. The prospect of religious institutions having to choose between recanting orthodox Christian doctrine or facing state-imposed closure is Orwellian.

 

[wizards8507]

There are already efforts afoot to "Bob Jones" Catholic institutions for upholding the Church's ancient doctrine.

 

[wizards8507]

Okay. I would argue that the free market sucks at doing health care.

It's never had the chance. Federal and state regulations have always choked out the market's ability to reach equilibrium through competition. State-sanctioned monopolies and oligopolies, combined with high barriers to entry, have kept healthcare (and utilities and cable and...) well above their market-appropriate price points.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'll be interested to see how many of you are cheering this when Notre Dame is in danger of losing its tax exempt status/ accreditation because of the "bigotry" embodied by du Lac.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

No, they're not "free" to do so. At least not without losing their tax exempt status. Most churches operate on very narrow margins, so losing tax exempt status would force them to shutter. The prospect of religious institutions having to choose between recanting orthodox Christian doctrine or facing state-imposed closure is Orwellian.

A few honest questions.

Bob Jones is a university. How does that relate to a church?

Does Notre Dame exclude gay dating? Does it refuse to admit openly gay students?

 

[GoIrish41]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

apparently, as of today, it can.

 

[wizards8507]

Does Notre Dame exclude gay dating? Does it refuse to admit openly gay students?

The University embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage. Consequently, students who engage in sexual union outside of marriage may be subject to referral to the University Conduct Process.

Sexual Activity // du Lac: A Guide to Student Life // University of Notre Dame

 

[Emcee77]

No, they're not "free" to do so. At least not without losing their tax exempt status. Most churches operate on very narrow margins, so losing tax exempt status would force them to shutter. The prospect of religious institutions having to choose between recanting orthodox Christian doctrine or facing state-imposed closure is Orwellian.

But what about today's decision makes you think that is a realistic possibility? What do you think today's decision might require churches to do that would be "recanting orthodox Christian doctrine"? Obviously not actually marrying same-sex couples. That's a far cry from Bob Jones.

I'll be interested to see how many of you are cheering this when Notre Dame is in danger of losing its tax exempt status/ accreditation because of the "bigotry" embodied by du Lac.

What part of du Lac?

 

[phgreek]

Okay. I would argue that the free market sucks at doing health care.

Insurance wasn't really a free market solution, and I would argue therein lies alot of its problem. I think we could have achieved some good things w/o the Federal overhead associated with ACA...which is indeed cost that never provides care, and never goes away.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The University embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage. Consequently, students who engage in sexual union outside of marriage may be subject to referral to the University Conduct Process.

Sexual Activity // du Lac: A Guide to Student Life // University of Notre Dame

That's not new. What about specific regulations for gay students?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Somewhere NDgradstudent is sobbing in a corner with a bible in one hand and genetics textbook in the other.

Somewhere Buster is getting ready to marry...ten people? How many people fit in the Horseshoe?

 

[wizards8507]

But what about today's decision makes you think that is a realistic possibility? What do you think today's decision might require churches to do that would be "recanting orthodox Christian doctrine"?

Because progressives never stop progressing. They never say "mission accomplished, let's go home." They move on to the next outrage. Whatever they need to do to create an army of victims that forms their political base.

 

[GoIrish41]

Okay. I would argue that the free market sucks at doing health care.

 

[wizards8507]

That's not new. What about specific regulations for gay students?

I'm thinking of a hypothetical "married" gay couple at Notre Dame engaging in sexual relations. In the eyes of the Church, they're not, in fact, married. So their act would violate the clause I quoted.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bob Jones is a university. How does that relate to a church?

BJU is a religious university. It defended its ban (albeit poorly) on interracial dating by citing the Bible. The government argued that such practices should disqualify BJU from tax exempt status, and it won. Now the way is paved for gay rights activists to make the same attack on Catholic institutions who refuse to grant same-sex relationships equal status to sacramental marriages.

Does Notre Dame exclude gay dating? Does it refuse to admit openly gay students?

I'm not intimately familiar with du Lac, though I'll surely be doing a lot of reading on this in the near future. I doubt same-sex dating is explicitly mentioned, though gay couples certainly aren't allowed to get "married" in the Basilica. And ND doesn't have a policy of excluding gay students, though it does privilege Catholic applicants over those of other faith traditions; the gay rights movement is in many ways actively hostile to Catholic doctrine and institutions, so to the extent one openly associates with such, that might negatively impact the chances of getting in.

 

[GoIrish41]

Insurance wasn't really a free market solution, and I would argue therein lies alot of its problem. I think we could have achieved some good things w/o the Federal overhead associated with ACA...which is indeed cost that never provides care, and never goes away.

But we didn't. And so, Congress passed ACA. We can talk all day about the problems with the law, or what would have been a better solution. But nobody was offering a better solution.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

BJU is a religious university. It defended its ban (albeit poorly) on interracial dating by citing the Bible. The government argued that such practices should disqualify BJU from tax exempt status, and it won. Now the way is paved for gay rights activists to make the same attack on Catholic institutions who refuse to grant same-sex relationships equal status to sacramental marriages.



I'm not intimately familiar with du Lac, though I'll surely be doing a lot of reading on this in the near future. I doubt same-sex dating is explicitly mentioned, though gay couples certainly aren't allowed to get "married" in the Basilica. And ND doesn't have a policy of excluding gay students, though it does privilege Catholic applicants over those of other faith traditions; the gay rights movement is in many ways actively hostile to Catholic doctrine and institutions, so to the extent one openly associates with such, that might negatively impact the chances of getting in.

I'd be interested in reading what you find. Keep me posted. I don't see these as very analogous, but I'll keep an open mind.

 

[IrishLax]

I am pretty sure that their are more. Wikipedia lists 18 countries that have legalized gay marriage and many are western. Color me confused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Same-sex_marriage

Sorry, I misread all of those article from a month ago:
Ireland becomes first country to legalise gay marriage by popular vote | World news | The Guardian
Ireland is first country to legalize same-sex marriage in popular vote - LA Times

The operative word is by popular vote. Sensationalized headlines for the loss.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But what about today's decision makes you think that is a realistic possibility? What do you think today's decision might require churches to do that would be "recanting orthodox Christian doctrine"? Obviously not actually marrying same-sex couples. That's a far cry from Bob Jones.

In order to receive Federal scholarship monies, ND has to be accredited by a secular quasi-governmental entity. Similar organizations in Canada have already started revoking the accreditation of Christian law schools:

Law societies in Ontario and Nova Scotia have refused to recognise the law degrees of students from a proposed new Christian law school because of its parent university's teachings on homosexuality...

One member of the LSUC's bench, Howard Goldblatt, was quoted in the Globe and Mail saying: "‎I cannot vote to accredit a law school which seeks to control students in their bedrooms."

You don't think that could happen to ND?

What part of du Lac?

I'm going to have to look for specific examples, but you guys are grasping at straws here trying to distinguish ND. Look at what's happened in Europe and Canada already. The US is following the same path. ND is a Catholic school, and the influence of the catechism is all over its rules and regulations. According to SCOTUS, we're no better than segregationists now.

 

[IrishLax]

BJU is a religious university. It defended its ban (albeit poorly) on interracial dating by citing the Bible. The government argued that such practices should disqualify BJU from tax exempt status, and it won. Now the way is paved for gay rights activists to make the same attack on Catholic institutions who refuse to grant same-sex relationships equal status to sacramental marriages.

That's all a huge stretch, because none of Du Lac is anti-gay. Any Catholic principle in Du Lac applies to each human as a human, and they would win any case brought against them by an easy First Amendment argument. For example, the prohibition on premarital sex applies to all people... male/female, gay/straight... equally.

And even if part of it was anti-gay, sexual orientation still isn't a federally protected class, unlike race. So we're a whole precursor of a step away from this even being a possibility.

I'm not intimately familiar with du Lac, though I'll surely be doing a lot of reading on this in the near future. I doubt same-sex dating is explicitly mentioned, though gay couples certainly aren't allowed to get "married" in the Basilica. And ND doesn't have a policy of excluding gay students, though it does privilege Catholic applicants over those of other faith traditions; the gay rights movement is in many ways actively hostile to Catholic doctrine and institutions, so to the extent one openly associates with such, that might negatively impact the chances of getting in.

I don't see any basis for that. You can be gay and be Catholic, many are. If you list participation in groups that are openly hostile to Notre Dame AND can prove illegal discrimination per a law on your admittance... well, Notre Dame would frankly deserves to lose for the same reason HBCUs aren't allowed to deny admission to white people on account of skin color.

 

[wizards8507]

That's all a huge stretch, because none of Du Lac is anti-gay. Any Catholic principle in Du Lac applies to each human as a human, and they would win any case brought against them by an easy First Amendment argument. For example, the prohibition on premarital sex applies to all people... male/female, gay/straight... equally.

But what about married sex between a gay couple? The feds say "they're married," the Church says "no they're not." du Lac is enforced based on the Church's interpretation.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's all a huge stretch, because none of Du Lac is anti-gay. Any Catholic principle in Du Lac applies to each human as a human, and they would win any case brought against them by an easy First Amendment argument. For example, the prohibition on premarital sex applies to all people... male/female, gay/straight... equally.

So what if two gay students at ND want to get married? Is ND required to let them use the Basilica for their ceremony? Is ND required to put them up in married student housing?

I understand the reaction; SSM is this generation's civil rights battle, so it feels good to think of oneself as being on the "right side of history". And who wants to have that high spoiled by being reminded that the implications of this decision will likely one day harm things they hold dear? "Nope, no way, never gonna happen..."

There's no way to square same-sex marriage with orthodox Christianity. So now that the former is the law of the land, any institution holding to orthodox Christian views of human sexuality is going to face increasing legal persecution and social marginalization. Notre Dame included.

And even if part of it was anti-gay, sexual orientation still isn't a federally protected class, unlike race. So we're a whole precursor of a step away from this even being a possibility.

I guarantee sexual orientation becomes a protected class within the next 5 years. Probably much sooner than later, honestly.

I don't see any basis for that. You can be gay and be Catholic, many are. If you list participation in groups that are openly hostile to Notre Dame AND can prove illegal discrimination per a law on your admittance... well, Notre Dame would frankly deserves to lose for the same reason HBCUs aren't allowed to deny admission to white people on account of skin color.

I was trying to give Jayhawk an honest answer as to how being "openly gay" might conceptually impact one's odds of getting admitted. Practically speaking, ND's admissions process is far too opaque for a legal challenge to ever be realistic.

 

[Emcee77]

In order to receive Federal scholarship monies, ND has to be accredited by a secular quasi-governmental entity. Similar organizations in Canada have already started revoking the accreditation of Christian law schools:



You don't think that could happen to ND?

No, I don't think that could happen to ND. I agree it would be outrageous if it did. The TWU policy was not even specifically directed at gays. It prohibited sexual activity between unmarried heterosexuals, as well.

But even if the exact same thing happened to ND, I wouldn't much care. ND has to teach Catholicism and be able to practice Catholicism, but I'm not sure it should be disciplining students when they fail to live up to Catholic standards, anyhow. That disciplinary function is not essential to our mission.

 

[wizards8507]

No, I don't think that could happen to ND. I agree it would be outrageous if it did. The TWU policy was not even specifically directed at gays. It prohibited sexual activity between unmarried heterosexuals, as well.

But even if the exact same thing happened to ND, I wouldn't much care. ND has to teach Catholicism and be able to practice Catholicism, but I'm not sure it should be disciplining students when they fail to live up to Catholic standards, anyhow. That disciplinary function is not essential to our mission.

I disagree. Notre Dame is not just an educational institution, but also a residential and communal one.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No, I don't think that could happen to ND. I agree it would be outrageous if it did. The TWU policy was not even specifically directed at gays. It prohibited sexual activity between unmarried heterosexuals, as well.

These sorts of things have already been happening throughout the West for decades, which is why organized religion has all but collapsed in Europe (liberalism requires its own set of quasi-religious beliefs which are incompatible with Christianity, but that's a different argument...) The US has lagged behind Europe on these trends for a variety of reasons, but we're finally catching up.

So why don't you think ND's accreditation/ tax exempt status could be threatened like TWU's? It seems inevitable to me.

But even if the exact same thing happened to ND, I wouldn't much care. ND has to teach Catholicism and be able to practice Catholicism, but I'm not sure it should be disciplining students when they fail to live up to Catholic standards, anyhow. That disciplinary function is not essential to our mission.

If most alumni share your feelings on this, we're already lost. This is no different than defining Freedom of Religion down to the Freedom of Worship. "We don't care what crazy bullsh!t you believe, as long as you limit it to private Sunday gatherings and it doesn't impact us in the slightest." If that attitude is going to be enforced within private religion institutions like ND, then it's back to the catacombs for Christianity.