Posted on 10/16/2015 5:29:17 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A law professor at Jesuit-run Fordham University in New York is appealing for an end to the institution of marriage in America, which he describes as “religious, gendered, and bourgeois.” Ethan J. Leib published his essay in the Fordham Law Review.
The article, titled “Hail Marriage and Farewell,” says Leib was “elated” when the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land on June 26, 2015, a ruling he described as “a victory for rights, for open-mindedness, for love, and for the future.” The decision, in fact, made him feel, at least for a moment, as if he were living “in a modern liberal state.”
Not liberal enough, however. Leib argues that Obergefell v. Hodges, while an important milestone in “marriage equality,” doesn’t go nearly far enough. The next step must be to “disestablish” the antiquated institution of marriage altogether.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The next step must be to “disestablish” the antiquated institution of marriage altogether.
THIS IS WHAT THEY’VE BEEN AFTER ALL ALONG
Another idiot. Another NWO worshipping government is my god satanist trying to destroy the family unit. He does realize that all the freebies will go out the door for his fellow leftists because the family units are the producers of revenue that fund his government, right?
Single-parenthood is the surest way to condemn yourself and your children to a life of poverty.
And this is why I don’t give to my (Fordham ‘72) and my wife’s (Fordham ‘74) alma mater.
Idiot.. if a person supports eliminating the bourgeois “institute” of marriage... does he realize that the “bourgeois” institute of Christianity will be next? Just because something is “old” and been done for a long time.. doesn’t make it bad or bourgeois.
The Commie Pope is likely in full agreement.
What happens to the 7th Commandment if there is no marriage?
What other sacraments are the Jesuits proposing to eliminate?
Well, while that may be one of his goals, I liked the idea of getting the State out of the marriage business and giving it the right to regulate only a sort of generic “civil union” - of whatever type, but basically aimed at regulating tax and practical matters which actually are the State’s competency - while leaving marriage up to the religious institutions.
Jesuits are a society in the Roman Catholic Church.
If you do some reading, you’ll see how far the rabbit hole goes. World wars etc for starters.
A. The Indoctrinated or Lockstep Leftists; if they're so "smart" and alleged independent thinkets why do they spout the same bs lines that other leftists do? B. Rich, spoiled brats whose parents paid for their education C. Free-loaders who got a free ecucation by not paying back their student laons (and there are a LOT that fit into this category) D. Professional students who didn't want to work for a living
feel free to add your own...
A. The Indoctrinated or Lockstep Leftists; if they're so "smart" and alleged independent thinkets why do they spout the same bs lines that other leftists do?
B. Rich, spoiled brats whose parents paid for their education
C. Free-loaders who got a free ecucation by not paying back their student laons (and there are a LOT that fit into this category)
D. Professional students who didn't want to work for a living
feel free to add your own...
“The Commie Pope is likely in full agreement.”
Of course not, don’t allow the enemies of Christ to divide you from other Christians...
The fact that this enemy of Christ is paid to teach at a Catholic school says a lot.
“Isn’t the current pope a Jesuit?
What happens to the 7th Commandment if there is no marriage?
What other sacraments are the Jesuits proposing to eliminate?”
This is not about what Jesuits believe...it is the writing of a law professor. The article purposely worded it the way it did to cause division and skepticism among Christians. Don’t fall for this evil.
Actually I have no problem getting the government out of the Sacrament of Marriage.
I wonder if Professor Leib is familiar with the Bible??
-——“The Commie Pope is likely in full agreement.”-——
more precisely......
“The Commie Jesuit Pope is likely in full agreement.
Lay control of Catholic Universities has been an unmitigated disaster. Fordham's administration is typical:
Officers of the Board and President of the UniversityRobert D. Daleo
Chair of the Board
Retired Vice Chairman, Thomson ReutersEdward M. Stroz
Vice Chair of the Board
Executive Chairman, Stroz Friedberg LLCNora Ahern Grose
Secretary of the BoardJoseph M. McShane, SJ
President, Fordham University
when the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land
NO THEY DID NOT, The supreme Court does not have the authority to “MAKE LAW” they merely invalidated a State Law for a specific case. They only have the “Authority” to invalidate Sate Law in it’s entirety if and only if they Hear the Case in “Original Jurisdiction” which means from DAY ONE. This was an “Appellate” decision, not one derived from “original jurisdiction” and it only applies to the case at hand.
Article 3, section 2 US Constitution:
n all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Furthermore, as I understand it. the Case was SENT BACK to an “inferior court” with a decision on law and fact, whereby the “inferior court” becomes the final arbiter.
However NO INFERIOR COURT has the authority to order any State to do anything.:
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.