Arguments were held before the Supremes yesterday on the volatile issue of gay marriage and one particular scenario, raised by Justice Scalia, should bring chills to faithful Catholics:
SCALIA: Miss — Bonauto, I’m — I’m concerned about the wisdom of this court imposing through the Constitution a — a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons. They are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of. And were — were the States to adopt it by law, they could make exceptions to what — what is required for same-sex marriage, who has to honor it and so forth. But once it’s — it’s made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions — for example, is it — is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State
to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?
BONAUTO: Your Honor, of course the Constitution will continue to apply, and right to this day, no clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry. We have those protections.
SCALIA: But — but right to this day, we have never held that there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry, and the minister is to the extent he’s conducting a civil marriage, he’s an instrument of the State. I don’t see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men. Which means you — you would — you could — you could have ministers who — who conduct real marriages that — that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage. I don’t see any — any answer to that. I really don’t.
SOTOMAYOR: Counselor, there have been antidiscrimination laws in various States; correct?
BONAUTO: Yes, Your Honor.
SOTOMAYOR: Antidiscrimination laws regarding gay people.
BONAUTO: Correct.
SOTOMAYOR: And in any of those States, have ministers been forced to do gay marriages?
BONAUTO: Of course not, Your Honor. And —
SCALIA: They are laws. They are not constitutional requirements. That was the whole point of my question. If you let the States do it, you can make an exception. The State can say, yes, two men can marry, but — but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the State. You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.
BONAUTO: If one thing is firm, and I believe it is firm, that under the First Amendment, that a clergyperson cannot be forced to officiate at a marriage that he or she does not want to officiate at. And since there were several other questions, if I may.
SCALIA: He’s not being required to officiate. He’s just not given the State’s power, unless he agrees to use that power in — in accordance with the Constitution. I don’t — seems to me you have to — you have to make that exception. You can’t appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the Constitution.
BONAUTO: I think if we’re talking about a government individual, a clerk, a judge, who’s empowered to authorize marriage, that is a different matter that they are going to have to follow through, unless, again, a State decides to make some exceptions. In Connecticut, after the court permitted marriage, it did actually pass a law to do deal with implementation issues, including these kinds of liberty issues.
SCALIA: Because it was a State law. That’s my whole my point. If it’s a State law, you can make those exceptions. But if it’s a constitutional requirement, I don’t see how you can. And every State allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under State law. That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the State must marry two men.
Ramifications here are huge... and predicted.
The recently deceased Cardinal Francis George, during a 2010 talk to newly ordained priests, said:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization as the church has done so often in human history."
Proponents of gay marriage, particularly those who deem themselves Catholic, should read and digest the oral arguments aired yesterday at the SCOTUS, particularly those just excerpted, and consider what their acquiescence has wrought, what their capitulation will bring, what the effects of denying a central tenet of the faith will have.
Succumbing to cultural pressures has consequences.
Comments