Natural Law

Our Constitution acknowledges the existence of absolute and unchangeable natural law. Natural law is discerned by the use of reason. Reason has long discerned that the male and female bodies are constructed for the begetting of offspring; offspring in need of the complementary mother and father role models. Reason discerns that society significantly recognizes and supports this natural relationship for the good of society. Society has wisely done so for generations, until recent years.

I and many other active Catholics, and apparently including many in the clergy, are becoming more and more disgusted with our bishops. If marriage is only between a man and a woman according to natural law, and it is the most perfect way to live in family as human beings, as they proclaim, why have they wasted so many millions on interfering with state law and not working on a real problem in their own backyard. Why don't they have the courage to stand up and campaign against the "mandatory celibacy law" of our own priests - surely this is against the natural law, and it certainly didn't come from Jesus.

IF THEY'RE HONEST with themselves, both supporters and opponents of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court will admit that Thomas' confirmation hearings were less than enlightening.For the most part, Democratic senators asked loaded questions designed to get Thomas to say something that would hurt his chances. For the most part, Republican senators asked softball questions designed to make Thomas look good.And, for the most part, Thomas avoided answering all of them, walking away from his own past and statements and reinventing himself to such a degree that no one is now sure who he is.The hearings were particularly disappointing when they focused "natural law" and "natural rights."

As the referendum on same-sex marriage moves forward to the November election, I offer the following points on why I oppose same-sex marriage. The basic thrust of many supporters of same-sex marriage is to argue that same-sex marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that it is a corollary of the unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence....

Washington. -- If Americans have the patience to listen to the often highly abstract debate that already surrounds the legal views of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, they will hear the modern echoes of a controversy that goes back well over two centuries.It is no less than a debate over where Americans get their rights: the source of their fundamental rights as human beings and the origins of their legal rights as citizens of this country.The debate got started after President Bush picked Judge Thomas, of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Washington. -- Within days of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, you could take your pick of half a dozen charges against him. He was, we were told, an Uncle Tom in judicial robes, turning ungratefully against the same affirmative action that made him what he is. The hoary claim was revived that any office holder with Catholic convictions would become the pope's puppet. Somebody turned up speeches in which Mr. Thomas had praised an anti-Semitic demagogue. Others recalled his admission that he puffed pot in college.

Chevy Chase. -- Before the critics of Judge Thomas positively faint away at the thought of ''natural law'' jurisprudence, it might be useful to recall the thoughts of some recent justices on the subject.Exhibit A is a speech given by former Justice William Brennan in 1980 at the dedication of the University of Maryland Law School library, named in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall. (Justice Marshall had declined to attend the ceremony on the very reasonable grounds that the same law school had denied him admission 50 years earlier.

As the referendum on same-sex marriage moves forward to the November election, I offer the following points on why I oppose same-sex marriage. The basic thrust of many supporters of same-sex marriage is to argue that same-sex marriage is a civil right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that it is a corollary of the unalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence....

I and many other active Catholics, and apparently including many in the clergy, are becoming more and more disgusted with our bishops. If marriage is only between a man and a woman according to natural law, and it is the most perfect way to live in family as human beings, as they proclaim, why have they wasted so many millions on interfering with state law and not working on a real problem in their own backyard. Why don't they have the courage to stand up and campaign against the "mandatory celibacy law" of our own priests - surely this is against the natural law, and it certainly didn't come from Jesus.

Legal scholars who have been combing the scant body of scholarly writing produced by Judge Clarence Thomas in his 20 years as a lawyer, public official and appellate-court judge have turned up a number of references to ''natural law'' or ''higher law.'' Let us hope President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court will be questioned closely at his confirmation hearings about just how he proposes to apply those benign-sounding concepts to the judicial process...

There is a very good reason why a Virginia delegate should not be lecturing Gov. Martin O'Malley on his support for same-sex marriage ("On marriage, O'Malley should heed O'Brien," Aug 16). His appeal to lofty ideals such as natural law and even Thomas Jefferson ring hollow when one considers that it was Virginia which produced the test case of Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Loving plaintiffs were challenging the Virginia miscegenation statute (called the Racial Integrity Act in Jim Crow parlance)

As a Catholic, a 20-year member of the Virginia General Assembly, the author of Virginia's 2006 voter-approved one-man, one-woman Constitutional Marriage Amendment, and a graduate ofMaryland public schools, I take issue with Gov. Martin O'Malley's insinuation that Baltimore's archbishop should remain silent while the governor attempts to alter marriage — nature's most fundamental relationship for mankind. In his Aug. 2, 2011, letter to Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, the governor points to areas of agreement, but then gratuitously adds that he would never presume to question the archbishop's right to define or administer the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Our Constitution acknowledges the existence of absolute and unchangeable natural law. Natural law is discerned by the use of reason. Reason has long discerned that the male and female bodies are constructed for the begetting of offspring; offspring in need of the complementary mother and father role models. Reason discerns that society significantly recognizes and supports this natural relationship for the good of society. Society has wisely done so for generations, until recent years.

As of today, I have not seen any positive response to Peter Sprigg's commentary on marriage ("Same-sex marriage is contrary to the public interest," Feb. 2) in the Baltimore Sun. Among those responding to his article, one letter ("If the public purpose of marriage is children, we need to change a lot of laws,"http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-marriage-law-letter-20110203%2C0%2C6293825.story Feb. 3), mentions that Mr. Sprigg insists "that marriage is only about making and raising babies in the natural, God-ordained way. " Nowhere did I see any mention of God or religion.

On Nov. 5, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, took the podium at a Republican rally, waved a document defiantly and declared:"This is my copy of the Constitution, and I'm going to stand here with the Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ..." Mr. Boehner was encouraging participants to protest the pending House vote for health care reform by demanding their constitutional right to make medical decisions.

My conscience has a thousand several tongues,And every tongue brings in a several tale,And every tale condemns me for a villain.-- Shakespeare, Richard IIIWhen seemingly ordinary people commit unspeakable crimes, anguished onlookers ask: How could they? How could an American teen-ager gun down his classmates as casually as he might annihilate cartoon enemies on a video screen? How could Serbian militiamen, at the orders of Serbian leaders, methodically slaughter and rape villagers in Kosovo?

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas acted swiftly yesterday to move well away from some of his harshest criticism of modern court rulings on individual rights -- including abortion -- to try to defuse critics' claims that he is a constitutional radical.Without saying that he had been wrong in the past, Judge Thomas over and over sought to show to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the theory he has often used to assail the Supreme Court bitterly -- his controversial belief in "natural law" -- was never intended for that purpose.

There is a very good reason why a Virginia delegate should not be lecturing Gov. Martin O'Malley on his support for same-sex marriage ("On marriage, O'Malley should heed O'Brien," Aug 16). His appeal to lofty ideals such as natural law and even Thomas Jefferson ring hollow when one considers that it was Virginia which produced the test case of Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Loving plaintiffs were challenging the Virginia miscegenation statute (called the Racial Integrity Act in Jim Crow parlance)

LANSING, Mich. -- In the existing public climate of dissatisfaction with both major political parties, the phenomenon fringe-party candidacies has blossomed this fall. Would-be Ross Perots are popping up all over the country, and they are proving harder to ignore by the news media as voters look sympathetically, if not supportively, on those willing to offer an alternative.Their insistent presence poses a dilemma for the major-party candidates, and especially for sponsors of candidate debates including radio and television stations.

Paris. -- The latest papal encyclical has disappointed the press by dealing with morality in terms of principle rather than practice. The press was waiting for more exciting stuff. As a BBC presenter genially and condescendingly asked before the document was published, would the pope ''declare himself infallible'' on questions of people's sexual behavior?The pope said something less interesting to the press but more radical. He said that there are absolute values in the order of existence, and things that are intrinsically evil.