More folks concerned

Among N. America's most eminent RC Canon Lawyers and American cultural enthusiasts, Dr. Peters, in his blog today, states:

"Recently I came across a passage in a medieval canonical treatise, the Summa Aurea by Hostiensis (d. 1270), wherein the great lawyer paused, as it happens, to point out (at the risk of preaching to an audience who took such a truth for granted) that marriage can only exist between a man and woman, and one of each at that. How ironic that words penned by a canonist 750 years ago are more helpful to us today than they were to their original audience!"

"Preserving the clipped prose typical of medieval canonistics and omitting citations, I here offer my rough rendering of Hostiensis' thirteenth century text on marriage."

"What marriage is. The conjoining of a man and a woman holding to an individual manner of life; a mutual sharing with divine and human aspects. Marriage is between a man and a woman; two of the same sex cannot be married. For, in the beginning they were not created two men nor two women, but first a man and then a woman. A wedding therefore that is not a commingling of the sexes would not have within itself a sacrament of Christ and the Church. Marriage is also spoken of as being between a man and a woman in the singular, and not of men and women in the plural, for no one man can wed several women, nor can one woman wed several men."

http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-in-medieval-canon-law.html

It's interesting to know what folks think "history" really is, so -- not to be outdone by Real History, see this homily on Maahwridge:

So complimentary sexual association is THAT old?!

http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/11/18/worlds-earliest-nuclear-family-found/

Re-read (I presume you've read it already) the following re: same sex unions

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030614_family-europe-trujillo_en.html

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

Amendments and Constitutional Rights - Define Marriage for us

El D, define marriage for us.

"To Destroy You Is No Loss"

Teeda Butt Mam was fifteen years old when the Khmer Rouge came to power in her native Cambodia. This is her story. The title comes from a slogan of the Khmer regime: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."

excerpt one

This audio book is currently out of print. If you enjoy this audio book please send $5 to the publisher:

East/West Bridge Publishing House
P.O. Box 211412
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821-1412 U.S.A.

From a Christian perspective - Marriage

For those who deem the Christian perspective important, then read (at least, because there are at least 5 times this many statements promulgated over the years) the following:

USCCB 1996 - http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.shtml

USCCB 2003 - http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml

Marriagewatch.org - http://www.marriagewatch.org/

Pontifical Council on the Family 2003 - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030614_family-europe-trujillo_en.html

Idem. 2000 - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2003 - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

CCCB website - http://www.cccb.ca/site/content/view/1342/1019/lang,eng/

Religious Coalition for Marriage - http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/

Catholic Insight 2005 - http://catholicinsight.com/online/political/homosexuality/printer_611.shtml

Bork on Marriage Amendment -- Marriage

Robert Bork is certainly somebody to consider when examining the issue of "same-sex marriage".

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=369

See also this recent Fordham Univ. PhD dissertation

More on same-sex marriage and Natural Law.

But you've got to order & pay to read the whole thing.

http://theanathemata.blogspot.com/2006/11/for-my-great-blogging-friend-who.html

Princeton Principles

A summary, but see link below.

Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good

1. Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
2. Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
3. Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
4. Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
5. Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
6. Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
7. When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
8. A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
9. The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
10. "Civil marriage" and "religious marriage" cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.
http://www.princetonprinciples.org/contents.html

Proposition 8 and Gay Marriage

While I have no dog in this fight per se and suffer from news fatigue syndrome and election withdrawal simultaneously, It seems to me that if equal protection before the law has any meaning, any person should be able to choose what type of person they marry.
There are those that believe that permitting gays to marry is an insult to the institution of marriage or that by definition marriage is between man and a woman. Okay, but aren't 98% of celebrity marriages an affront to the institution and half of non-celebrity marriages as well? As far as the definition of marriage is concerned, don't we all define our marriages for ourselves? Who the hell are we to define it for others?
The one caveat I would insist on here, is that religious institutions must not be forced to recognize any marriage that violate the tenets of their faith. By definition, any religious organization has beliefs that define them from the population at large. To force, for example, The Roman Catholic Church to recognize and indeed perform gay marriages is to deny them freedom of association and would destroy them as a community of belief.
On the other hand, there is a whole huge can-o-worms to be opened here. Once gays can marry, why not polyandrists, siblings, bigamists etc? I suppose an argument can be made and the people can decide, as they did in California, that to ensure the cohesion of the basic building block of society, ie the family, marriage needs to be more narrowly defined. Which asks the question, is marriage a right? If so be prepared for who knows what. If not, then reasonable limits can and perhaps should be imposed, preferably by public accord and assent. If it were up to me, I'd have to say I'd allow gays to wed, but I would draw the line there.

Democrats: Ever Gracious in Victory

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees last week told the White House to preserve all records produced by the Bush administration and expressed "particular concerns" whether Vice President Dick Cheney's office will comply with the law.

I weep for the future.

Dodd To Remain On Senate Banking Committee

In a move that can only be described as business as usual or disgustingly expected or par for the course in the land of unaccountability, Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Dodd will continue to chair the Senate Banking Committee. This after receiving sweetheart deals from failed mortgage giant Countrywide -and repeatedly refusing to release the details of his malefactions. The unalloyed gall of this fargin bastage. The worst part is, he'll continue to stand in front of any number of TV cameras and wag his fudge covered finger with all the fervency of the just and righteous. We know better Senator, you sir are part of the problem, if not THE PROBLEM. I hope the Connecticut electorate toss you out on your drunk, special interest lipstick stained ass.

No Shit: An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

So the WaPo has discovered bias in their coverage of the election, who tipped them off?

Election Analysis from Iowahawk

Probably the best satirist on the web:

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don't care whether you are a conservative or a liberal -- when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation's highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let's not let that distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left....

(link)

Zaphod tribute

So now I know with whom I blog.

Obama Wins

I always thought the first African American POTUS would be a conservative. I was wrong. President elect Barack Obama has ascended to the presidency because of three or four key phenomena:

1. A complicit and willing press. I hope Obama is everything he pretends to be, but we don't really know do we? While the press pours over Alaskan travel vouchers for footing errors and rail against Palin's expensive wardrobe, ACORN registers untold numbers of fraudulent voters, Obama's ties to ACORN go unmentioned and any other item that could possibly cast doubt on Obama's self reinvention as a mainstream Democrat disappear into the ether.
2. George W. Bush. Bush is a good man and was right on the primary issue facing the West today, Islamic Extremism. Other than that, he screwed the pooch. How else does Joe Biden become vice president of anything other than the Hair Club For Men?
3. The financial meltdown. If the financial shite hadn't the fan when it did, the GOP may have had a chance against such an ostensibly inexperienced candidate. It would be nice if one in ten American voters knew which administration repealed Glass-Steagal. See item one.
4. John McCain. You're a Maverick, I get it. Years of pissing in Republican ears are not without cost. To salve the GOP wounds and to shore up the base, McCain was forced to choose Sarah Palin, whom I like, but the choice removed the biggest cudgel with which to beat the upstart Obama - lack of experience. I don't know if any other choice for VP would have made a difference, but it's kinda hard to knock Obama's inexperience when a 72 year presidential candidate chooses a woman, no matter how promising, of scant experience herself. Again, the press in an amazing feat of intellectual flexibility found it easy to mention Palin's lack of experience every other breath while never noticing the same in Obama.

Change has come to America - an overview of B.O.'s acceptance speech

Change has come to America. I am typing this as Obama's acceptance speech shows on the TV.

But I can't help remembering the N.I.C.E. organization of CS Lewis' That Hideous Strength; I can't help but think of many other fictional novelties.

Obama's crowds bleakly applaud McCain's bow-down, and applaud (somewhat bleakly) Biden, and then cheered (the meglomaniac) 1st Lady Michelle & the first Lady's dog, like the 2nd Coming on a chariot, yet weak applause for the rest of his his family (racism, Michelle?)-- but real cheers for his campaign coordinator, etc, etc, heroic cheers. Why not? So its the politico's they know & love.

He says: "We will get there." Where? Who knows?

Of course, he indicates that "I will fail, as president, through setbacks," etc. But "we will make that change." "Values by which we won (weak applause) will heal the divides."

This guy is an inverse Bush.

Spend spend spend of the middle classes' wages, and Promise The World to the Outside, both right and left.

"If my daughters should live so long" (so as actually to come out of their Mother's womb before I might allow them to be killed) then we shall do it. But unfortunately, we've apparently decided against that Hope and Change, so my daughters might be dead..... might be killed as they came outta my wife's uterus, only several minutes old; only several months old since conception.

"I support that kinda change!" Which is NO change for the unborn.

The CNN Coronation of these people is scandalous and stomach-wrenching. We are now again living in the age of the Ceasars.

Hail Obama! That is what we must now cheer.

Predictions

It's no secret what I want to happen tomorrow. I'm not a big fan of McCain but an Obama victory combined with an expanded Democrat majority in Congress fills me with dread.

Stephen Green over at Vodkapundit sees the map this way going into tomorrow:



As a prediction/analysis, this looks pretty good to me. Obviously, team Obama has expanded the map. They've created numerous paths to victory. It's been a very strategically sound campaign.

McCain's path to victory is much much narrower. Early on, we'll be looking at Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio. If ANY of those states goes Obama's way, McCain doesn't win. If they all go to McCain, all eyes will shift to Missouri and Florida.

We'll know soon enough.

For dispirited McCainiacs here's this.

Now go out and vote!

Ammo Pricing

Apropos of nothing, I priced out the cost of a 1000 rounds of .223 or 5.56 mm, if you will, 55 grain FMJ shipped to my door:

Aim Surplus $249.07

Ammoman $259.00

Natchez Shooting Supplies $247.63

Cabela's $292.64 - With a very convoluted gimmick that gives you $20 off - hardly worth it.

Cheaper Than Dirt $262.67 - Out of stock.

Able Ammo $332.50

A1 Ammo $370.61, out of stock on nearly everything in .223.

Midway USA $322

J&G Sales $323.94

AmmoBank.com $450 +

Apparently it pays to shop around. I have ordered from Ammoman.com in the past and I like them because the price you see is the price you pay including shipping. Natchez is pretty straight forward as well. I hate to say this, but Cabelas seems to disappoint at every opportunity. They used to be so good, but now not so much.

Watching "Big Night" again

For those who are fond of cooking, Mediterranean culture, Italian Immigrants of early 20th century America, or of any of the following: movies like Bigfellas, Il Postino, Zorba, The Godfather; and TV cooking shows like Restaurant Makeover and the like; or S. Tucci's acting (at his best); or else the following type of book, Kitchen Confidential:

Then get a hold of the movie