Opposite jobs

More from the Opposite Files:

If you are not a teacher it doesn't matter what you do in your personal life.

If you are not a teacher it matters what you do in your personal life.

Read More

Miserere Nobis

[See UPDATE at the end of this post]

So Pope Francis comes to America for the first time. How do we welcome him?

President Obama arranges for him to be greeted by Gene Robinson, the first gay Episcopal bishop in the U.S., Mateo Williamson, the transgender head of the LGBT "Catholic" group Dignity USA, Sister Simone Campbell, a pro-choice dissenting nun as well as "married lesbian Catholics" (and of course Joe Biden).

While he is here he visits the UN, where Shakira sings "Imagine" for him (you know, "imagine there's no heaven" because the world would rock if we eliminated religion).

Even during mass, at Madison Square Garden, the lector is "Mo Rocca", an "openly gay Catholic." I have to believe that Cardinal Dolan knew who was serving at mass.

The there are those who put themselves above the Pope in matters of the faith and morals, who mock him for what he didn't do enough of (as if the "left" don't already know he is for family and life - their very choice of guests shows that they know that).

Betrayed from within and without, we slap him in the face at every turn, and what does he do? He smiles and looks past it. You may think he's a fool, and maybe he is, but I think he's trying to live out the Gospel as best he can.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem!

UPDATE: So, because it seems people are misunderstanding this I thought I'd add some clarification.

1. I did not say gays are offensive. What I mean is that constantly bombarding Pope Francis with people who claim to be Catholic but do not believe what Catholics believe is in essence mocking him. To use an analogy, suppose Richard Dawkins was coming to America to a conference on evolution, and the welcoming committee was stacked with people who claimed to be scientists too, but believe in young-earth creationism. Then he was serenaded by someone singing about how evolution is responsible for all the evil in the world. I hope you can see that such a thing would be clearly designed to offend or mock Mr. Dawkins. So too, I think the choice of guests and song were intended to mock Pope Francis.

2. Before criticizing Pope Francis for missing opportunities to tell Congress et. al. how bad they are doing, think about the parable of the prodigal son. Or consider when Jesus calls Levi. It's not very effective to tell people how bad they are unless they already understand you love them. I think Pope Francis' evangelization style is to do just that. Tell people God loves you, and we love you too and want you to be happy. It doesn't matter what you've done, it doesn't matter whether you agree with us or not. We love you and will care for you. Loving someone doesn't mean you agree with them, or that you think they are going down the right path, it means you recognize their dignity as a person made in the image and likeness of God.

3. From an interview with Pope Francis on the plane ride home:

When the plane leaves after a visit, I see the faces of so many people. I get the urge to pray for them and say to the Lord, 'I came here to do something, to do good, perhaps I have done wrong, forgive me but protect all those people who saw me, who thought of what I said, who heard me, even those who have criticized me, all of them,' that is what I feel. Excuse me, it’s a bit personal…you can’t say that in the newspapers.

Read More

Nancy Nancy Nancy

So Nancy Pelosi says that "gay marriage" is consistent with Catholicism (she disagrees with the Pope on that, but hey). She said:

“I thoroughly disagree (with Rubio’s opposition to gay marriage), being raised in a Catholic family... the Baltimore catechism, to get back to our hometown of Baltimore, was what we were raised on. And I think that this statement by Senator Rubio is most unfortunate. It’s a polarizing statement. The fact is, is that what we’re taught was to respect people in our faith and to say that this endangers mainstream Christian thinking is so completely wrong.”

So, she says we should look at the Baltimore Catechism. Fortunately, it's online, and I looked up the section on matrimony. It says [emphasis mine]:

Q. 1005. What is the Sacrament of Matrimony?A. The Sacrament of Matrimony is the Sacrament which unites a Christian man and woman in lawful marriage.
Q. 1006. When are persons lawfully married?A. Persons are lawfully married when they comply with all the laws of God and of the Church relating to marriage. To marry unlawfully is a mortal sin, and it deprives the souls of the grace of the Sacrament.

I won't hold my breath for her correction...

Read More

Why gays should (continue to) have the right to marry

I was in a “discussion” on social media the other day, about the whole “gay marriage” issue, which went horribly. One “Christian” was arguing that nobody has a “right” to marriage. He is wrong, of course. Everyone has the right to marriage. Here is a post listing 14 supreme court cases upholding the right to marriage as being fundamental. To quote from one of the cases, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” For better or for worse (pun intended) marriage has been recognized as a fundamental human right by the supreme court.

Even the Catholic ode of Canon law states in Canon 1058: “All can contract marriage who are not prohibited by law.” It then lists a whole bunch of conditions under which the law prohibits a marriage, but sexual orientation is not among them.

The whole “gay marriage” argument is based on the claim that “gay” people (meaning people who have same sex attraction) are not allowed to marry. Just as in the days of racial segregation and slavery, when whites and blacks were forbidden to marry, so too are gay people forbidden to marry.

However, there is no prohibition forbidding gay people from marrying, either in US law or Canon law. Today any gay man and woman can go to a justice of the peace or other official and be married.

“But wait, Mike!” you say “You're being sneaky!” I am and I'm not. The fact is that the “gay marriage” movement is being sneaky, by calling something a marriage that isn't. They liken their case to the case of interracial marriage. For instance, in the aptly named “Loving v. Virginia” the court struck down a Virginia law that forbid blacks and whites to marry each other. Surely choosing to marry a gay man should be just as protected as choosing to marry a black man.

And it is. There is no law preventing a woman from choosing to marry a gay man, or a black man, or an atheist man or any other kind of man. There is no unjust law to be struck down.

Instead the whole thing is subterfuge to force a redefinition of what a marriage is. Interracial marriage was not about people doing something different from single race marriages, but about allowing different people to do the same thing. Gay “marriage” is about people doing something different from marriage, but forcing others to change their definition of marriage to conform to their (the gay marriage proponents) will.

“But Mike!” you say “You don't understand. These people love each other! Why can't they marry?”

I applaud the fact that they love each other, but love isn't marriage. I love my mother. I can't marry her. I love my sister. I can't marry her. I love my best friend. I can't marry him. But let's say you're right – love is synonymous with marriage. Then what is the state's role in this? Is it necessary for the state to approve of my love or your love? If marriage just means love, then it is a private thing between two people, and doesn't require any outside person to acknowledge it (like the state, or a bakery).

Furthermore, if marriage is just love, then why can't I marry my sister or my friend? Why can't I marry my sister and my friend? The fact is you can't marry anybody. That's already established law. From the original article, Griswold v. Connecticut says:

Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids . . . but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality . . . or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy.

“But Mike!” you say “You don't understand. Marriage is just a contract. Why can't two people make a contract?” Because marriage is not just a contract. If all marriage was were a contract between two people, then any two people might in fact enter such a contract (or non-person legal entities, such as towns, governments and corporations). But established law is that marriage is not just a contract.

Again, from the article, Griswold v. Connecticut cites Adams v. Palmer, ME:

"It [marriage] is not, then, a contract within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is, rather, a social relation, like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself; a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life and the true basis of human progress."

and Noel v. Ewing, IN:

In Noel v. Ewing, 9 Indiana, 37, the question was before the Supreme Court of Indiana as to the competency of the legislature of the State to change the relative rights of husband and wife after marriage, which led to a consideration of the nature of marriage; and the court said: "Some confusion has arisen from confounding the contract to marry with the marriage relation itself. And still more is engendered by regarding husband and wife as strictly parties to a subsisting contract. At common law, marriage as a status had few elements of contract about it. For instance, no other contract merged the legal existence of the parties into one. Other distinctive elements will readily suggest themselves, which rob it of most of its characteristics as a contract, and leave it simply as a status or institution. As such, it is not so much the result of private agreement, as of public ordination. In every enlightened government, it is preëminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern. In this light, marriage is more than a contract. It is not a mere matter of pecuniary consideration. It is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity."

Not that I regard the Supreme Court as infallible, but to be fair, if arguments for redefining marriage are put forth based on legal precedent, we must also take into account legal precedent against those arguments. It appears that in many cases the argument against is in the same legal case, which indicates that the decision is being taken out of context.

In summary, there are good and bad arguments for holding to the "traditional" definition of marriage. "Marriage is not a right" is a bad arguments. On the other hand, I have yet to hear a good argument for redefining marriage.

I issued a challenge two years ago, for someone to show me what right is being denied by “traditional” laws regarding marriage. So far nobody has taken me up on it. I know people claim rights, but those “rights” all assume that gay “marriage” is the same as marriage, which is what is being decided. You can't make an argument by assuming a result is correct and then claiming you are correct based on the assumption. That's simply begging the question.

Read More

The second amendment and the fourteenth amendment

This is an interesting time to be living in the state of New Jersey. While almost all of our Constitutional rights are being eroded at the state and federal level, some rights are actually expanding. Recently there have been a spate of cases involving the second amendment which have gone to higher courts.

The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that San Diego county's standard of "good cause" for carrying a gun was unconstitutional. While this is not in New Jersey, it is promising in that New Jersey's standard for carrying a gun ("justifiable need") is even more restrictive than California's. In local news, New Jersey's restrictive carry laws are being challenged at the Supreme Court level by the Drake case as well as the Pantano brief.

However, given the slow and bumpy progress on restoration of our second amendment rights, Someone asked the question, on facebook, whether the courts' eagerness to step in and immediately crush state laws on marriage (such as in Virginia, Kentucky and California) can be used to advantage for the fight to get courts to recognize actual rights enshrined in the Constitution (specifically the right to keep and bear arms).

Of course, someone had to inject some pro-homosexual "declaration of rights" and I responded with a post that was immediately declared "the stupidest thing" and I was labeled an "asshole." Not the first time, nor the last. But Facebook isn't a good place for making a reasoned argument (a good place for argument, bad place for reason) and so I decided instead of continuing the conversation there I'd put it here where I can write a longer piece (and perhaps be called new names).

And so, "resolved: same sex 'marriage' is not a 'right' in the sense of the second amendment."

First off, let's look at the second amendment [emphasis mine].

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that this is a right of every individual. The state can have a legitimate interest in regulating it, but cannot abolish the right itself. Thus states are free to enact laws that restrict the sale of guns (to minors, for instance) and to ban certain specific models of guns, but not to make arbitrary or sweeping restrictions (such as a ban on all handguns).

Now let's look at section one of the fourteenth amendment (aka the equal protection clause) that allegedly makes marriage a right [emphasis mine].

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The fourteenth amendment was put in place after the civil war and the intention was that you could not make laws that restricted blacks but did not apply to whites. So the claim of same sex marriage supporters is that gays are denied equal protection under the marriage laws because they are not allowed to marry.

But that is clearly not the case. There is no law preventing homosexuals from marrying. They have the same privileges in respect to marriage as every other person, citizen or non-citizen, in the USA and are therefore already treated equally under the law. In fact, may homosexuals are married. The issue is not with the legality marriage, but with the redefinition of marriage.

So the questions to be asked are "what is marriage?" and "does government have a legitimate interest to regulate it?"

Traditional marriage supporters will tell you that marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the benefit of children, and the mutual benefit of the spouses. Same sex marriage supporters will tell you that marriage is a contract between two people who love each other. Both answers re true, but what do they imply in terms of society and government? Let's look at each definition as if it were the true one and examine the ramifications.

If marriage is a union of one man and one woman for the benefit of children and the mutual benefit of the spouses, we have the marital situation as it has existed for at least five thousand years. Civil laws restricting marriage date all the way back to Hammurabi (remember him?) Under this definition the state has a legitimate interest to regulate marriage, because society benefits when children are raised by a father and a mother rather than the state having to support single parent families or feed and house "feral" children. By giving married couples preferential benefits society assures that the next generation of citizens are cared for and educated. This also tends to decrease income disparity and protect women's rights.

If marriage is a contract between two people who love each other, we have a situation where the state regulates love. What interest does the state have in recording whether two people love each other? Is not that their own affair? The argument is often made that the state has an interest in inheritance rights. The inheritance rights of children today does not depend on the marital status of their parents, and why should the state care (other than recording it for tax purposes) about inheritance between two adults? Arguments about medical insurance are specious, since the state has never made a law saying that insurance companies couldn't offer insurance to policy holders' lovers.

So if marriage it truly just a contract two between people who love each other, it should be a matter of contract law, not a matter of civil rights. the government should stay out of the marriage issue altogether. And this is a position that some people take. It's a very libertarian position. But what are the implications of this?

If marriage is a civil right that government shouldn't regulate or restrict in any way, then it should not be restricted in any way. Anyone who wants to enter into this kind of contract should be allowed to do so. Siblings should be allowed to marry, and parents should be allowed to marry their children. There is no legal reason why this should not be allowed, provided the parties give consent. Likewise, married people should be allowed to marry, so polygamy and polyandry must be allowed. Again, there is no reason why more than two people can't be signatories of a contract. Likewise, legal entities such as businesses are capable of entering into contracts, so someone shoudl literally be able to marry their job.

"But Mike," you say "You're being ridiculous!" Am I? Show me a compelling legal argument why. The closest to anything I have seen is for someone to point out that the definition of a marriage is between two people. But it's not actually between two people, it's between one man and one woman. Saying it's between two people is already making an arbitrary expansion of the definition to fit a case you want to include. So who's to say others can't expand it to fit cases they want to include? What makes your definition stand the test of time, when no other one will?

But what about existing case law involving the fourteenth amendment. Wasn't it used to expand marriage to include interracial marriage? And isn't being gay just like being black?

Well, let's assume that being gay is like being black (although the jury is out on scientific evidence). The fourteenth amendment didn't give black people the right to marry. They were already married. And marriages between blacks were not considered inferior or different in any way from marriages between whites. What the court ruled was that interracial marriages were no less marriages because they people didn't like them. But it did not change the definition of marriage or couples. As I pointed out, homosexuals are free to marry other homosexuals. They are free to marry heterosexuals.

I could write so much more on the subject, had I the time, but I think what i have written is sufficient to show that same sex marriage does not fall under the umbrella of a civil right, and certainly not a basic right (like the right to bear arms). I'm open to discussion on the matter, but the only responses I have received was to be called names. I don't consider that to be a cogent argument.

Read More

Gay Guns

Yes, the Opposite Files are back...

Made up "right", states must honor most lax laws of other states.

Real right (written in Constitution) states can restrict despite laws in other states.

Read More

Bigot (part 2)

In my previous post, Bigot, I spoke about the lack of evidence of any "rights" that are denied homosexual couples under current law, and therefore the lack of a reason to change the definition of marriage. In this post I intended to talk about reasons not to change the definition of marriage, but it occurs to me that I should first ask the question "why marriage?".

I was going to start with Merriam-Webster again, then discovered that they recently changed their definition from

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1 : the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis

to

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

which is a poor definition for reasons that will become clear later in this post (not the least of which is that a dictionary is supposed to record the definition of a word as commonly used, not attempt to introduce new usage). So for now let's start with the Oxford dictionary, which has not changed its definition.

marriage :/ˈmarɪdʒ/ noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

So, my question about this definition is "why?". Why does the law recognize this union? What interest does the state have in who I hang out with, or live with, or sleep with?

My pro-SSM friends will argue that it has to recognize this union for the purpose of property rights. However, I find this unconvincing. First off, the state recognizes shared property rights without a marriage. Secondly the state doesn't intrude in property rights for partnerships other than marriages. It is pretty clear from looking at the structure of family court that the state's interest in marriage is ensuring that children are cared for. And that's a noble goal. After all, children are human beings.

Children have rights, and one of those rights is the right to their father and mother. The father and mother, in turn, have the responsibility to care for and educate their child to produce a citizen. In recognizing marriage, the state recognizes an institution that is far older than itself, and in fact is the basis of society and government; the family.

In other words, marriage is an institution not for the "rights" of parents to have children if they want, but for the rights of children to have their own parents care for them. This is common sense. Clearly marriage is not necessary to get together and have children. But it is a commitment to stay together to raise those children.

The Catholic Church has always recognized this, and indeed every religion and government recognized this throughout all of history until the last century. I won't get into how and why this changed for some organizations because that would be another entire series of posts. But let's look at the Catholic perspective on marriage.

If you wish to be married in the Catholic Church you are required to post banns of marriage - that is, state your intent to marry publicly for a period of time. You must receive instructions on what marriage is. You must promise that you will have whatever children God gives you. You must promise to raise those children and educate them in the Catholic faith. These are requirements for marriage.

What about people who don't want to have children? They should not be married, and in fact cannot be married as Catholics. What about people who can't have children? They can be married. Isn't that a contradiction? No. Nobody can predict what will happen, we can only say what we want to happen and what we promise to do in that situation.

Why is the Catholic Church so hung up on sex? We're not. We're hung up on life. Marriage is about bringing life into the world, and the Catholic Church is one of the few organizations that not only talks the talk but walks the walk.

But what about same sex couples? Can't they have children and raise them and educate them? No, they can't. If you have read a biology book (or even if you haven't) you should realize it takes both sexes to produce a child. Hence no need for marriage, because they are not going to produce children with each other.

What about adoption? Adoption exists again not for the "rights" of adults to get children they want, but for the rights of children to get the parents they need. It is not a matter of "ownership" of a child, but of meeting the needs of children. If a child loses one or both parents for some reason (including abandonment), adoption gives that child the benefit of a mother and father (and usually brothers and sisters as well). Adoption by two people of the same sex does not give that child any benefit. Two "mommies" (or two "daddies") does not make a mother and father, regardless of what role playing goes on.

Of course, many pro-SSM people will disagree with this definition of marriage. To them I offer the following observation and question. First off, whether they like it or not, this is the definition of marriage by the Church today and by everyone since before recorded history. I did not invent this, and neither did the Church. Secondly, if marriage is something else, what is it that makes it distinct from any other thing (such as a contract, for instance)?

Next, see Bigot Part 3.

Read More

Jenny has

Jenny has two women whom she was taught to call "mommy", although only one really is.

Jenny has a father in Boston who has laughing blue eyes and a beard. She will never know this, however because he will always be just "donor" to her. She imagines he was a spy captured by enemy soldiers and that's why he never comes to see her. In fact, he makes people happy playing beautiful music on the piano. Jenny will never take piano lessons because nobody knows how much she would love it if she had the opportunity.

Jenny has a Father in heaven who loves her, and she loved Him too until she was taught that He didn't exist and that people who believed in Him were ignorant and hateful. Jenny's mother teaches her that in reality things are what you believe them to be and if you want happiness you have to envision it and the universe will send it to you. Any sadness Jenny has is her own fault because she's not trying hard enough.

Jenny has a family history of colon cancer on her father's side, and since she doesn't know to get screening for it, it will probably kill her if she lives long enough.

Jenny's father has an aunt who could teach Jenny how to make pierogi and dance a polka, and how to speak Polish, and tell her about her grandfather, who was descended from a duke. Jenny will never meet her.

Jenny has a grandmother who lives in a nursing home. She wishes she had someone to visit her or a reminder that someone loved her. Jenny loves to draw and makes dozens and dozens of pictures of flowers that her "mommies" put on the fridge until they finally have to throw some out.

Jenny has an "uncle" who likes to borrow her mother's clothes, and who teaches her what a male body is like. Her "mommies" want her to be free to explore sexuality. Jenny uses this to her advantage and becomes a very popular fifth grader.

Jenny has a baby who loves her, whom she will never know. She's not sure whose it is, but since she is 13 and it might be her gym teacher's he takes her secretly to get an abortion.

Jenny has a savior who died for her, whom she will never know. He sheds a tear for her as the nail pierces the flesh of His left hand.

Read More