Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)

Check out Scripter's profile page and check the Categorical Archives. I'm sure there's something there either about that particular scenario (I remember it well) or other incidents related to schools.

I didn't see what state you're from, but here in CA it has been mandatory since 2001 to teach pro-homosexual classes in schools, K-12. Some do it more extensively than others, but it is the law. Some schools have special weeks, special pro-"gay" teachers and presenters; and they are encouraged to add it to the general cirrculum. Kids are supposed to be able to be "opted out", but teachers often purposely don't send the forms, or send them in a timely manner; or the forms are sent with bunches of papers that the parents never see.

And even if a kid is "opted out" of some special class, all the others kids have been tainted by pro-"gay" propaganda, and anyway it filters in to the regular subjects, as it is meant to.

Then there are the GLSEN "Gay Straight Alliance Clubs" that are popping up all over the place.

Justice Scalia's hyperbole notwithstanding, there has never been a SCOTUS decision (or that of any lower court, or even that of a court in another Western civilization) that has ruled in favor of polygamy.

And only recently has the court ruled on the side of the homosexual agenda. Revamping old laws against sexual behaviors and redefining marriage is a NEW phenomenon in the courts. You're saying that because polygamy hasn't been sanctioned yet, it never will.

My point is simple. We cannot assume that anti-polygamy laws will be held intact by the courts, particularly in light of recent precedent that paves the way for their revocation. You apparently feel a confidence in the good judgment of courts that I cannot share.

If we ever get a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas was, yes, it might be possible for a rogue Supreme Court of a state to do this. I cannot imagine it happening, however.

This point concedes the danger of Lawrence v. Texas--and, again, presumes that the Supreme Court will not follow its own established reasoning.

Can you see Ruth Bader Ginsberg letting a Utah polygamist off the hook, after he parades his subservient "wives" in front of the Court? I sure can't.

There you go again with the stereotypes.

The court will make a decision based on the validity of the arguments made, not on the perceived social stigmas of the parties involved. The argument presented by polygamists will be similar to the one made by homosexuals: "I and this person want to get married, yet the government discriminates against me. My choice in whom I marry is my personal business. The state has no right to forbid me to marry."

In Lawrence, and in MA, the courts have rejected the idea that the morality of the majority factors into the debate. In the absence of that, the court has no legal basis on which to deny polygamists marriage licenses. Indeed, when we remove the moral majority objections to polygamy, there is scarcely an argument against it.

After all, it's just a question about numbers, right? On what basis can the government determine how many persons are suitable for a marriage? Why should the government care? People should be able to marry according to their beliefs and tendencies in a free society, right?

I'd like to hear your legal objections to polygamy, sans the moral majority argument you have obviously rejected.

This was NOT a vote for gay marriage, this was a vote dealing with amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. Check the polls, you'll find uniformly, that there is less support for amending the Constitution than there is for gay marriage.

My point with that remark was show your contradiction. You say polygamy should be illegal because the majority objects to it, yet you advocate homosexual marriage, despite its minority support.

If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!

The lobbying for polygamy is going on before the courts, not in our legislative process. The courts act without regard to what the populace wants, as they force new laws on the public. That's the condition of our legal institutions today.

In order for a change to happen in our society, it needs a sizable (although not majority) constituency. Other than a few religious whackos that keep getting beaten down in court, there is no constituency in favor of polygamy.

Again, you assume the issue will be decided legitimately in the legislature. It is not. And again, I fail to see how you can reconcile holding this position while advocating gay marriage under minority support. The people don't want same-sex marriage, and never asked for it. I didn't notice MA court taking a poll when they ruled for gay marriage.

It is a different issue!

The issue is the same. It's about the definition of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment would have prohibited gay marriage and polygamy, and kept the traditional definition.

Thanks! Spread the word.

Those wanting a short-hand version of the 1972 platform can use this:

Resurrecting the Original Homosexual Agendas

In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met in Chicago to develop an official “gay rights” platform. Some of their requests included:

“Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference, lifestyle, and as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.”
“Repeal all state laws prohibiting… prostitution, both male and female.”
“Repeal of all laws prohibiting transvestitism and cross-dressing.”
“Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.” [legalization of pedophilia]
“Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits of marriage to all persons who cohabit, regardless of sex or numbers."

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/News/newspage.asp?story=1784

Check out Scripter's profile page and check the Categorical Archives

OK, will do.

I didn't see what state you're from

The People's Republic of Washington. And right now, I'd be glad to have a RINO as at least one of my US Senators!

pro-homosexual classes

I'm really uncertain what a "pro-homosexual class" is. Do they really try to solicit kids to experiment with homosexual behavior, or do they just teach kids not to gay bash? I despise hearing the word "gay" used as an insult to a person or an idea among school age kids, and anything that makes that word as unacceptable as a racial epithet is probably a desirable thing.

Back when I was in high school in the early '70s, we could pretend that there were no gay people in my school, but by the time the 30th class reunion hits, if not sooner, you realize that you were just in the dark.

I went to a fairly "progressive" school in a suburban area, which drew from the nicer neighborhoods in my city. My stepdaughter just graduated from a small town high school out in the logging country (graduating class was a bit more than 100) and she knew a couple of classmates who were gay. We've come a long way for acceptance to change that much in thirty years, although I guess some folks here would say that we shouldn't have.

Then there are the GLSEN "Gay Straight Alliance Clubs" that are popping up all over the place.

Again, I think this is an expression of some of our young people not wanting to buy into the prejudice of older generations, and to reduce the marginalization that some of their homosexual classmates experience. I suspect that this marginalization is what drives some of them to get totally outrageous, sort of like the gay pride parade pics we see here at FR.

Ok, in summary, if polygamists can follow the very same path that homosexuals have followed to get public acceptance, it is possible that future courts will grant them the same rights. And I suppose that the shoe fetish people can have the same thing said for them.

I just simply don't think it can possibly happen within the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this sentence. And probably for a very long time after that.

If polygamists retain their far-fringe status, and are mentally suspect (in the case of the women) and morally suspect (in the case of the men), they will never attract the consensus needed to do anything other avoid prosecution for a time. As it is, anyone can make any living arrangement they so desire, and if the "sister wives" after number one stay home and raise the brood, they can now legally be claimed as dependents of the man, who already gets a joint filing status with wife #1. As for Social Security benefits, by the time polygamists could put together a coalition to effectively petition the courts for a relief of their grievances, SS will be long gone broke.

I appreciate your reasoned tone. But at the same time, I must conclude that you either have a bias to consider homosexuality benign, or just have not read about it very much.

The outrageousness displayed at "Gay Pride" parades has zero to do with being "marginalized" - a prop-speak word, if there ever was one. Homosexuals and their supporters basically control the mass media as well as higher institutions of learning. Many state jobs (I don't know about federal) mandate "sensitivity" training or classes to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, and people (I personally know of a couple of cases) are punished, demoted, or the like solely for having the wrong kind of bumper sticker, or writing the wrong kind of letter to the editor of the local paper.

So, enough of being "marginalized". Furthermore, if being "marginalized" caused people to display the kind of incredible sexually aggressive, deviant, obscene, tasteless, angry, behavior that goes on in "Gay Pride" parades, then such people obviously have serious mental health problems.

As far as the school situations, if you haven't yet educated yourself about what goes on, it's high time. EdReform is an expert and scripter's archives have information about what actually is currently happening in schools. Please, inform yourself. It is worse than you could imagine.

Here's a personal anecdote: I lived in Humboldt county a few years ago, (before even the state mandated homo-positive law) and a 12 year old girl wrote a letter to the local paper describing what went on in her middle school. The teacher asked for a show of hands to see how many kids considered homosexual behavior wrong. Only this one girl raised her hand. The teacher then had all the kids form a circle around this one girl and encouraged them to taunt her and call her names, so she'd feel like what it was to be tormented the way "gays" have been. She was criticized and taunted with the teacher's approval. It sounded like something from the Cultural Revolution in China.

Get back to the topic after you read some of the archived articles about GLSEN and what it's doing in schools. They have counsellors who tell "questioning" youth (they're really trying to reach out to the "qestioning" youth) that if they have had one "gay" thought or act, they are now "gay" and they can never change. That's recruitment, pure and simple.

"Better make sure your girlfriend was never bi."

Doesn't matter if she is or not. Any of her previous boyfriends could have been bi.

"Discrimination based upon sexuality is not against the law"

Yet. But it soon will be

"The only way to fix the problem is the repeal the XVII Amendment to the Constitution and once again have the Senators appointed by the State Legislators"

And this would change things how? These people would still vote the same way.

"how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?"

They won't be able to AFFORD to produce offspring, as all their money will be going to pay for the healthcare needs of the perverted.

"Justice Stevens has given every indication that he will never retire while a Republican is in office"

Willingly. God might have other plans for him.

Ok, substitute "polygamist" for "homosexual" in my response, but even if there are only 1% of people in the US who are homosexual, there are a FAR fewer number that are polygamist. And you know it, too.

I never argued their numbers were relevant to the eventual legality of their marriage practice. Their minority status means nothing to the courts. What I do argue is the courts will just as easily side with the minority in this case, as in the homosexual rulings, regardless of what the people feel about it.

But if you DO want to talk numbers, irrelevant as they are to this discussion, I found a few interesting facts. Turns out the estimated polygamist population in Utah is likely 60,000, not the smaller numbers I cited earlier. For a state whose population is 2.3 million, that makes it 2.6% polygamist (more than its gay population, I might add, which totals a miniscule 0.3% same-sex couples). And that’s just those currently trying to practice polygamy underground. Once polygamy is legalized, the numbers could realistically be expected to rise, wouldn’t you think?

Interestingly, polygamist marriage differs greatly from homosexual marriage in several key areas that indicate growth after legalization. For one thing, homosexual marriage can never exceed 1-3% of the population, since it is limited to the number of persons considering themselves homosexual. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests many, if not most, homosexuals have no interest in ever becoming married.

By contrast, all polygamists want to get married, and unpredictable numbers of other people might eventually practice polygamy who do not currently show that inclination. Also, this kind of marriage need not be confined to heterosexuals, and is in fact sought after by homosexuals, as proven by the 1972 Gay Rights Platform of the United States. (See post #438.)

The practice is also revered by a number of religious groups, fringe or not--most notably Islam.

There are over 4 million Muslims in the United States, and by 2010, they are expected to surpass the American Jewish population. They are among the fastest growing religion in the United States. If polygamy is legalized in the U.S., expect not a few of these individuals to practice it, as they do in other countries without polygamy restrictions.

Another consideration is the amount of children that inevitably spring from polygamy. They will be raised in this atmosphere, and most in turn will carry on the tradition as adults. In that, gay marriage has another growth disadvantage.

We cannot predict the actual numbers of people who would take advantage of the legalization of polygamy, but we can predict it will have a much higher growth rate than homosexual marriage.

Is this what we want? I don’t. But how can we stop it, now that Pandora’s Box is gaping open? Amending the Constitution is a drastic step, but one needed to effectively stop polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage that are offensive to the community.

It's true, another set of people's living situation does not affect my own. And yes, I do question their right to state sanction for that relationship, just as the religious conservatives do for gay relationships.

I think that’s contradictory. “Religious conservatives,” as you call them, oppose both gay marriage and polygamy, on the grounds that these are immoral and out of step with the majority's values and tradition. This is a consistent opinion. You oppose polygamy only, on the grounds that it is immoral and out of step with the majority's values and tradition, yet not gay marriage, which is perhaps even more offensive to the community, and is more radical.

It seems, logically, that you must be for both or for neither.

The difference is, there are a LOT more people willing to grant so-called "marital" rights to a homosexual couple than would grant them to a polygamist group. I guess that's just the tyranny of the emerging majority on this issue.

One year ago, how many people were lobbying to grant gay marriage? Very, very few. Now that it was legalized in Massachusetts, many people have figured there’s no point fighting it, and have bought the liberal arguments supporting it. (These folks, however, still remain in the minority.)

This proves nothing about what should or should not be legal forms of marriage. It only proves that once a thing is legalized, it become more palatable to the people.

Look, the difference here is that you think that homosexuals and polygamists are sick, misguided individuals. For me, its just the polygamists, when we're talking about only the two groups.

I never said homosexuals and polygamists are “sick, misguided individuals.” In fact, I respect them as my brothers and sisters, and pray for their return to Christ. We should hate the sin, but love the sinner, as Jesus taught.

I do hate the sin, and want to diminish its influence on America. The relativistic code imposed by Lawrence v. Texas treats all sexual behavior as requiring state sanction, regardless of laws passed against it by the moral majority. You know where this will lead, of course. It’s not just the things we’ve talked about, but also legalized prostitution. After all, that’s just about consenting adults. How dare society impose its judgment! Anti-pornography laws and age limitations on sexual behavior are also at risk. Did you know the ACLU is currently fighting for nudist rights for children?

Our country’s in bad shape.

My opinion is based on the only instance of polygamists I've seen, which is on websites that they themselves put up. If I had an opportunity to know some polygamists personally, I might have a different opinion, but I doubt it.

That is a very thin standard for marriage law.

I know some polygamists, as I stated earlier. They are human beings, not unintelligent bogeymen living in caves. However, my familiarity with them does not make me want to tear down the traditional, national understanding of marriage to accommodate their choice. Society prospers under a two-parent, heterosexual marriage. Every child wants a mother and a father, and possibly a few siblings. This is the ideal that society has always preferred, for its own best future.

Homosexuals are, of course, free to practice their “pursuit of happiness” as they see fit in their homes. That is a private affair, which they have no right to impose on society. But it seems they aren’t happy to leave well enough alone. What they want is not to pursue happiness, but to force acceptance of their pursuits on the rest of us.

If we allow them to do that, we, being a society of equality, must allow all others the same privilege.

The problem is that you think that you're in the clear majority. It might be true in your town, or your workplace, or your social group, or in your church. But its not the way things are in the nation as a whole. The courts have dealt with the fact that, as a society, learned people have been moving away from the model of homosexuality as a combination of sin and mental illness.

Notice the people didn’t ask for gay marriage. It was imposed on them by the MA court. Once it came to be, the approval numbers for gay marriage went up, though that stat remains in the minority--not because we want it, but because, like Roe v. Wade, it’s seen as the new law of the land that you just have to accept as the “new morality.”

This still doesn’t jive with your premise that marriage laws should be based on what the majority wants.

Like it or not, that explains today's vote. If the same vote had happened even ten years earlier, it would have gone the other way.

Actually, any attempt to change the Constitution is met with initial resistance. I’d say the first try, ending with 48 cloture votes by Senators, is a good start. When Bush is reelected, perhaps he will do more lobbying for the amendment. I can hope, at least.

One thing you can’t say is the 60 Senators voting against cloture are pro-gay marriage. Only a small number are on record as supporting it. Most opposed the amendment because they said it was a “states’ rights” issue, and they fell back on the Defense of Marriage Act, passed under Bill Clinton, which they said was sufficient to defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Olympia Snowe, for example, said the amendment was premature, since the DOMA is still in effect.

See http://www.clsnet.org/clsPages/lobbying/fma/SenPositionList.php. Go through this list, and you will see that an overwhelming majority of the non-supporting Senators cite states’ rights and the DOMA as the reasons they oppose the amendment. Some indicate they will vote for it in the future, if DOMA is overturned by the courts. Many observers predict it will. It is currently in litigation.

The DOMA reads, in part: “[T]he word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Currently, that is the national definition, in contradiction to the MA court-imposed law. One of them is going to have to budge.

Ok, in summary, if polygamists can follow the very same path that homosexuals have followed to get public acceptance, it is possible that future courts will grant them the same rights.

Again, the court didn't approach their decision from the "public acceptance" angle, as a legislature would do. They asked, essentially, "Do homosexuals have the right to marry?" They decided in the affirmative.

How will they address this question when it comes to polygamy? I know the MA court had negative words about polygamy, but they probably will never see a case pertinent to the question. Of course, other courts will, and they might be as near-sighted as MA court--but more equitable--in dismantling marriage and dispensing new wedding rights.

I found another interesting lawsuit, filed this month, unrelated to the other case:

Convicted Polygamist Argues That Polygamy is 'Constitutional Right'
Jul 2, 2004 9:27 am US/Mountain
The attorney for a former police officer convicted of bigamy and illegal sex with an underage girl has filed a brief with the Utah Supreme Court arguing that polygamy is a constitutional right.
Rodney Holm, a former police officer in the polygamous community of Hildale, was found guilty in August and sentenced to serve a year in jail.
In a 115-page brief, attorney Rodney Parker wrote that monogamy was the minority way of live worldwide, and that critics of polygamy overstate its problems.
``Current demographics, domestic relations law, and religious diversity all accommodate plural marriage,'' Parker wrote. ``Popular departure from traditional marriage has made our domestic laws on cohabitation and fornication anachronistic.''
Holm's conviction stemmed from his union with a third wife, Ruth Stubbs, who was 16 at the time of the plural marriage performed by leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Holm, who was 32 at the time, also is married to Stubbs' older sister, Suzie, and a second wife, Wendy.
In the brief, filed Wednesday, Parker argues that Mormon women have consistently voted to retain multiple marriage-- rejecting a common claim that it amounts to women's enslavement.
However, prosecutors contend that there is no constitutional right to have sex with a minor, and say polygamy can mean forced marriage and child spousal abuse.
Polygamy was part of the early beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but was abandoned more than a century ago. The Mormon church excommunicates those who advocate it.
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_184113215.html

Note the prosecution's argument is not against polygamy, itself, but against abuse in polygamy. It apparently doesn't dispute the notion of a constitutional right to practice polygamy when it lacks these characteristics.

I can't pretend to know how soon this will become legal, but I do know there's nothing in the way to stop a judge from "ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas."

And I suppose that the shoe fetish people can have the same thing said for them.

Well, now. Ain't that special.

It seems that FR is experiencing a protracted Tragedy of the Commons moment. More and more threads dragged down into pointless pissing matches -- in some cases, apparently intentionally, with the goal of getting the thread kicked to the backroom -- or, deleted outright.

If you can't silence the speakers, muffle their speech.

I've watched some of these so-and-sos running in packs. They tend to operate in the off-hours, where they can engage whoever happens to be there (and thus create a really nasty "many-to-one" situation), bait him/her to the breaking point, and then "score": A decent poster is suspended, a thread is knocked out of the ring, and, the "inconvenient" information will no longer be seen.

Yeah, the more I've thought about it, the more I've concluded that there are a number of bots (to coin a phrase) that operate with the goal of "informic cleansing" -- they do NOT want to have Too Many Eyes see "inconvenient" material -- so, they've got a system that works like clockwork.

What I *don't* know is if they're "joy-posters" (an extended collection of "get-a-lifers"), or, if it's a "service for hire" gaggle of paid seminar-posters.

Whatever it is, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and the result -- for me at least (and I suspect for others too) -- is less time spent on FR, and more time spent in Real Life.

As Zimmie said a long time ago, there are some among us who think that life is but a game. And it's not MY fate. Life is too short for this kind of crap. Especially as I watch what's left of my country going down the drain.

Aw, crap. I'm rambling.

G'nite.

PS: Illegitimus non-C.

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

WOW! Gay couples will have to put up divorce lawyers, spousal support, community property! It is the End of Civilization as we know it!

Society is rewarding the institution of Marriage, not the individual in a marriage.

This concept is only difficult for people who want it to be difficult. It's a failure of will more than a failure of intellect.

The way I understand it, now they have to form a trust to pass on their assets.

Maybe you're right. It isn't that big a deal to form a trust, I think.

The only thing that the civil law does not offer to homosexuals seeking legal partnerships with each other is state licenses, which is what this whole matter is about.

Civil contracts are much stronger than marriage "contracts", which do not obligate either party to do anything and do not permit damages for default.

Also, I am not arguing that the general welfare is not a legitimate aim of government. I am just stating that if you consider it more important than protecting individual liberty, you are one of the few.

I don't really care if I'm in the majority or not. I'm only interested in the truth. And the truth of the matter is that the common good comes before the protection of individual liberties, since the State must first provide for the common defense, for the benefit of society as a whole (the common good), before it can secure individual liberties.

Similarly, the right to life logically precedes the right to exercise personal liberties. Only living people can exercise their liberties.

From a strictly logical standpoint, the protection of individual liberties cannot be the first principle of the State because a prior principle is assumed, that the protection of liberties is the good for society. Therefore, the first principle of the State is the promotion of the good for society or "the common good." No prior principle is assumed, except man's final end, the promotion of which properly belongs to the Church.

Finally, personal liberty as a first principle of the State results in a contradiction: is a citizen of such a State free to relinquish his liberties?

In a State properly based upon the first principle of securing the common good, the State can act to prevent its citizens from relinquishing their rights without contradiction.

State and Church
I. THE BASIS OF RIGHTS
All rights and duties on earth come ultimately from God through the Divine Law, either natural or positive. The character of our natural rights and duties is determined by the purpose to which the Creator shaped the nature of man, and natural knowledge of them is acquired by human reason from the aptitudes, tendencies, and needs of nature. Duties and rights descending from positive Divine Law are determined by some additional purpose of God, over and above the exigencies of human nature, and are to be learned only from Divine Revelation, either in its explicit declaration or its rational content. Man has one ultimate purpose of existence: eternal happiness in a future life. But man also has a twofold proximate purpose: to earn his title to eternal happiness, and to attain to a measure of temporal happiness consistent with the prior proximate purpose. The State is a natural institution, whose powers, therefore, come from the natural law and are determined by the character of the natural purpose of the State plus whatever limitation God has, because of qualifications in the last end of man, ordained in the Divine Positive Law. The Church is a positive institution of Christ the Son of God, whose powers, therefore, are derived from the Divine Positive Law and are determined by the nature of the purpose He has assigned to it, plus whatever further concession He has made to facilitate the accomplishment of that purpose. In any consideration of the mutual relations of Church and State the above propositions are fundamental.
The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. In the pursuit of this latter purpose, speaking in the abstract, he had a natural right to constitute a social organization taking over the worship of God as a charge peculiarly its own. In the concrete however, i. e., as a matter of fact, God by positive law has vacated this natural right and established a universal society (the Church) for Divine worship and the securing of perfect happiness in the hereafter. God, furthermore, has appointed for man a destiny which cannot be attained by mere natural means, and consequently God has conceded to man additional means commensurate with this ultimate purpose, putting these means at the disposal of man through the ministration of the Church. Finally, He has determined the form of external public worship to be rendered, centring it about a sacrifice, the efficacy of which is from itself, being, as it is, a repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The goal, then, of the Church is the perfect supernatural happiness of man; its proximate purpose, to safeguard the internal moral order of right and wrong; and its external manifestation, to care for Divine worship and minister to man the supernatural means of grace. The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man's greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter. The dominating proximate purpose of man must be to earn his title to eternal salvation: for that, if needs be, he must rationally sacrifice his temporal happiness. It is clear, therefore, that the purpose of the Church is higher in the order of Divine Providence and of righteous human endeavour than that of the State. Hence, in case of direct collision of the two, God's will and man's need require that the guardian of the lower purpose should yield. Likewise the argument for the extension of the powers of the higher society in a measure into the domain of the lower will not hold for such extension from the lower into the higher.
II. THE RANGE OF JURISDICTION
As there are many distinct States of equal natural right the subjects of each are restricted in number, and its government of them is practically confined within the limits of its own territory. Within this territory it has full power to govern them, defining their rights and in some cases restricting the exercise of these rights conferring purely civil rights and imposing civil duties, holding its citizens to a proper condition of public morality, owning property and qualifying private ownership of the same--all within the exigencies of the civic purpose of preserving external juridical order and Promoting the prosperity of the citizens, and over all bound by the enactment of the Divine Law, both natural and positive. In a word, the State controls its own subjects, in the pursuit of its own natural end, in all things where a higher right does not stop it. A higher right will be a right existent because of an ulterior or a more essential destiny of man than the purpose which civil society pursues for him. The Church has the right to preach the Gospel everywhere, willing or nilling any state authority, and so to secure the rights of its members among the subjects of any civil polity whatever. The Church has the right to govern her subjects wherever found, declaring for them moral right and wrong, restricting any such use of their rights as might jeopardize their eternal welfare, conferring purely ecclesiastical rights, acquiring and holding property herself, and empowering her subordinate associations to do the same--all within the limits of the requirements of her triple purpose, as laid down by the Divine Positive Law, of preserving the internal order of faith and morals and its external manifestation, of providing adequate means of sanctification for her members, and of caring for Divine worship, and over all bound by the eternal principles of integrity and justice declared in the natural and positive Law of God.
In all purely temporal subject-matter, so long as it remains such, the jurisdiction of the State over its own subjects stands not only supreme, but, as far as the Church is concerned, alone. Purely temporal matter is that which has a necessary relation of help or hindrance to man's temporal happiness, the ultimate end of civil society or the State, in such wise that it is at the same time indifferent in itself as a help or hindrance to man's eternal happiness. It is of two kinds: primarily it includes all human acts so related, and secondarily persons or external things as far as they are involved in such acts. In all purely spiritual subject-matter, so long as it remains such, the jurisdiction of the Church over her ecclesiastical subjects obtains to the complete exclusion of the State; nor is the Church therein juridically dependent in any way upon the State for the exercise of its legitimate powers. Purely spiritual subject-matter is primarily made up of human acts necessarily related as help or hindrance to man's eternal happiness, the last end of the Church, and at the same time indifferent in themselves as a help or hindrance to man's temporal happiness; secondarily it extends to all persons and external objects as involved in such acts. In all subject-matter not purely spiritual nor purely temporal, but at the same time both spiritual and temporal in character, both jurisdictions may enter, and so entering give occasion to collision, for which there must be a principle of solution. In case of direct contradiction, making it impossible for both jurisdictions to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails, and that of the State is excluded. The reason of this is obvious: both authorities come from God in fulfillment of his purposes in the life of man: He cannot contradict Himself; He cannot authorize contradictory powers. His real will and concession of power is determined by the higher purpose of His Providence and man's need, which is the eternal happiness of man, the ultimate end of the Church. In view of this end God concedes to her the only authority that can exist in the case in point.
In a case where there is no direct contradiction but a possibility of both jurisdictions being exercised without hurt to the higher, though neither jurisdiction is voided, and they both might, absolutely speaking, be exercised without mutual consultation, practically there is a clear opening for some adjustment between the two, since both jurisdictions are interested in avoiding friction. Though concordats were not devised precisely for this purpose, they have in many cases been used for such adjustment (see CONCORDAT). Consistently with the superiority of essential purpose indicated above, the judicial decision as to when a question does or does not involve spiritual matter, either purely or in part, rests with the Church. It cannot lie with the State, whose jurisdiction, because of the inferiority of its ultimate end and proximate purpose, has not such judicial faculty in regard to the subject-matter of a jurisdiction which is as far above its own as the ultimate end and proximate purpose thereof is above that of the State. In analogous fashion every higher court is always judge of its own jurisdiction as against a lower.
All the above is matter of principle, argued out as a question of objective right, and it supposes that the jurisdiction is to be applied through the respective subjects of the same. In point of fact the duty of submission in a citizen of a State to the higher jurisdiction of the Church does not exist where the citizen is not a subject of the Church, for over such the Church claims no governing power. It may also be by accident subjectively obscured in one who, though in point of right the Church's subject, in good faith fails, through an erroneous conscience, to recognize this fact, and, by consequence, the Church's right and his own duty. The subject of the State has been made fairly clear by human law and custom; but the frequent rebellion, continued through centuries, of great numbers of the Church's subjects has confused in the mind of the non-Catholic world the notion of who is by revealed law a subject of the Church. The juridical subject of the Church is every human being that has validly received the Sacrament of Baptism. This birth into the Church by baptism is analogous to the birth within the territory of a State of the off spring of one of its citizens. However, this newborn subject of the State can, under certain circumstances, renounce his allegiance to his native State and be accepted as the subject of another. Not so one born into the Church by baptism: for baptism is a sacrament leaving an indelible character upon the soul, which man cannot remove and so escape legitimate subjection. Yet, as in a State, a man may be a subject without full rights of citizenship; may even, while remaining a subject, lose those rights by his own act or that of his parents; so, analogously, not every subject of the Church is a member thereof, and once a member, he may lose the social rights of membership in the Church without ceasing to be its subject. For full membership in the Church, besides valid baptism, one must by union of faith and allegiance be in fellowship with her, and not be deprived of the rights of membership by ecclesiastical censure. Hence, those validly baptized Christians who live in schism or, whether by reason of apostasy or of initial education, profess a faith different from that of the Church, or are excommunicated therefrom, are not members of the Church, though as a matter of objective right and duty they are still her subjects. In practice the Church, while retaining her right over all subjects, does not--except in some few matters not of moment here--insist upon exercising her jurisdiction over any but her members, as it is clear that she cannot expect obedience from those Christians who, being in faith or government separated from her, see no right in her to command, and consequently recognize no duty to obey. Over those who are not baptized she claims no right to govern, though she has the indefeasible right to preach the Gospel among them and to endeavour to win them over to become members of Christ's Church and so citizens of her ecclesiastical polity.

So then maybe it's all about "recognition", then?