Supreme Court

[4588686]

It's incorrect because it doesn't apply. It presumes the right of the Federal government to interfere in marriage contracts.

 

And no, I don't recognize the validity of an amendment passed using violence.  "Amendments mus be ratified by the states. If they aren't ratified, then send in troops."

 

Remember, I'm with Spooner. All the abolition, none of the murder.

 

 

All of the amendments were passed using violence.  So was the constitution.  You're selective in your abrogations.  

[Winchester]

All of the amendments were passed using violence.  So was the constitution.  You're selective in your abrogations.  

 

The votes for all the amendments did not use the same methods to secure "agreement".

[penguin31]

and perhaps even have their children forcibly removed from their homes because they will be deemed unfit to be parents (a natural consequence of the legislation) for refusing to accept the validity of same sex marriage. It's not really a question of if, because much of this has already happened.

I'm willing to grant that you, others, and the blog you cited do raise some very valid points, and that there are many long-term implications to consider, some of which aren't readily apparently. But this portion strikes me very much the wrong way as being unabashed nonsense and far removed from rational discourse. I simply cannot, no matter how hard I try, envision any such scenario in the United States in the 21st century where this actually has any potential to come to pass. The government and overall structure of this country pretty much make that an impossibility.

For what it's worth, one of the comments in the blog post you cited - that the blog's owner didn't even seem to find major fault with - is actually very relevant and similar to my own position:

But why should we only be concerned about extending such ‘rights’ of marriage (really, privileges), only to exclusive, sexually active couples? I know many people whose closest confidant and support is not someone that they live with, let alone someone in their family or who they achieve sexual pleasure with. I know a single mother whose best support is the priest who is her child’s godfather. Right now, her mother is her legal next-of-kin. Shouldn’t we give her a simplified way to assign that legal/social role to him? And in fact, the ancient world DID have legal ceremonies of ‘adoption’ for adults who wished to assign rights of inheritance and privilege to allies or friends.

Edited March 27, 2013 by penguin31

[BG45]

This is the best meme I've seen yet:

 

[Socrates]

The first and third examples of these are absurd and would obviously be protected speech - unless the priest in question was urging people to lynch homosexuals. The example given simply states that the priest was called to a committee, not that he was charged with anything. Also, it has no bearing on the U.S. Supreme Court case.

 

The second isn't so cut and dry, since the Civil Rights Act ensures "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This doesn't cover sexual orientation, though some states have included such language. But the state courts have already prohibited such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even without specific language in the law in the case of a restraunt having a policy of only seating opposite-sex couples in a semi-private booth, holding there was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

 

You might be able to argue, in the Bed and Breakfast case, that there would be a legitimate business concern - that fellow guests would be made uncomfortable, which would might lose the bed and breakfast business. But the issue is complicated - you can read more here. But even then, I think the decision in the Supreme Court on marriage will probably not effect the general Civl Rights laws of the states.

 

Regarding the first example, since the state of Massachusetts introduced legal "gay marriage," public schools have included homosexual in the curriculum for grades as young as Kindergarten (including "fairy tales" - no pun intended - involving same-sex marriages), and courts have ruled that parents with children enrolled in these schools cannot opt-out of such classes.  (See: "Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in Grade School Survives after Supreme Court Turns Down Case.")  

Yes, legally, parents could enroll their children in private schools or home-school them (though I'm not familiar with the home-school laws in MA), but those are not feasible options for all parents.

 

While the father was actually arrested for "trespassing" after refusing to leave a school board meeting until they would heed his request to inform him of when homosexual discussions would take place in his son's kindergarten class, this may have been the story Br. Adam was thinking of: "Father of 6-Year-Old Arrested Over Objection to Homosexual Curriculum in Kindergarten Class."

 

This is a perfect example of how laws can negatively impact the culture.

 

I believe these issues are related to the legalization of homosexual "marriage," as once homosexual marriage is legally established as a "right," it becomes harder to legally object to schools presenting it to children just the same as "hetero" marriages.

Likewise with cases like the bread-and-breakfast and wedding photography cases.  If there were not legal homosexual "marriage," in those states, it would not be a legal

issue.

 

While the cases involving suppression of free speech are in Canada, rather than the US, I think you are quite naive to presume that such things "could never happen here" on the basis of the first amendment.  Activist courts have never let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way when they want something badly enough.  A clever judge can always pull an emanation out of the penumbra to justify just about any decision.

 

You can always argue, but I don't think Br. Adam's concerns are completely without merit.

[Socrates]

The end result of the current cases will likely be the legal equivocation of marriages (sacramental or otherwise) and same-sex partnerships on a federal level, while leaving it to states to choose which types of partnerships they consider valid on a state level. States will probably have to recognize as valid marriages performed in other states when federal law comes into play, but not state law. You'll then likely see a second push to legalize same-sex partnerships as valid on the state level.  

I'm sorry, and I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular thing for me to say here, but I really don't understand the vehemence of the opposition to this. If someone would like to make a case to the contrary, by all means I'm all ears, but at the moment I just don't get it.  This doesn't even affect 99% of the people who are arguing against it.  No one's going to force churches or other non-governmental bodies to perform marriage ceremonies that they are not comfortable with. Heck, there are actually still some fringe protestant churches in the rural South which won't perform interracial weddings, amazingly enough. Sacramentally speaking, obviously a same-sex partnership isn't going to be valid within the church. No governmental legislation can change what does or does not constitute a Sacrament.

If the government wants to recognize the partnership of two individuals of the same sex as valid for their purposes, then fine. I could not possibly care less. As a straight heterosexual man, it doesn't impact my ability to marry or get married one iota, nor does it force upon any religious body the obligation to redefine a marriage within that faith. If two grown adults care about each other's well-being and future enough to enter into a legally-binding joint partnership, with the rights and responsibilities that result, then more power to them. 

 

As a Catholic, you might want to consider why the Church objects so strongly to such laws:

 

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:  CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

[StMichael]

What will they do or what should they do as per the Constitution.

 

Both cases are very different.

 

Prop 8 was a state amendment to their state Constitution voted on by its state citizens. As per state rights, this is allowable, much in the same way states can pass laws restricting who cannot be married (Mother, son or Brother, Sister, etc.). Marriage licenses are not federal, they are state issued. Each state can restrict marriage by age (Mississippi you must be 21 or older, in South Carolina, 16 or older, 13 if the female is pregnant). 

 

The Federal District court (the same wayward district 9) had no standing to take this case let alone attempt to reverse it. That is against the Constitutional outlines between the Federal Government and State rights.

 

In order for this to be decided by a Federal court, you must show it violates the Constitution. How does it violate the Constitution? Does the Constitution state anything about marriage and access to it by anyone? Does the Federal government have laws against polygamy? No it does not. However, every state in the union has made it illegal. Marriage is left to the states. If The Supreme Court was to overstep their branch and strike a states right, this would be unprecedented and further push us into a Constitutional crisis.

 

As for DOMA. This was a law passed by Congress, both parties partook in it and signed into law by Slick Willie. The basis of this law was to ensure that if a state allowed same gender marriage that it could not enforce its will on another state. So Vermont could not decide for Missouri. Because as it stands, a gay couple "married" in Vermont would go to Missouri, demand they be viewed as such in that state, sue and attempt a Federal court to push it through for them thus forcing a state that didn't want it, to now be forced to do so, in direct conflict with a state's right.

 

The danger with the Supreme Court striking this down, is that they will legislate from the bench making gay "marriage" legal in all 50 states and unconstitutionally take away state rights. This would be a Constitutional crisis.

 

Oddly, when the Democrats owned the House, the Senate and the Presidency, they had an opportunity to overturn DOMA if that was their will. But this needs to stay with the legislative branch otherwise it sets a precedent for the Court to define marriage as they see fit over the coming years with challenges to multi-sex unions, incestuous unions, etc.

 

I have made this statement over and over again since this first went from want to right. How can we then deny a self described bi-sexual man to "marry" from one from each gender? What do you say to him? Do you now have define marriage as a union of 2 people regardless of gender? How does that prevent a Mother from "marrying" her son or daughter? An Uncle his niece? Those on the wrong side of this really do not care as long as they get their want, which is not a right. But in the process will ensure that we are all redefined based on what they want. No more Mother, Father, but parent 1 and parent 2 ( in one case you have a parent 3). 

 

Wrong can not be made into a right.

 

 

 

[Winchester]

I have made this statement over and over again since this first went from want to right. How can we then deny a self described bi-sexual man to "marry" from one from each gender? What do you say to him? Do you now have define marriage as a union of 2 people regardless of gender? How does that prevent a Mother from "marrying" her son or daughter? An Uncle his niece? Those on the wrong side of this really do not care as long as they get their want, which is not a right. But in the process will ensure that we are all redefined based on what they want. No more Mother, Father, but parent 1 and parent 2 ( in one case you have a parent 3). 

 

Wrong can not be made into a right.

So if you were on an island with two other dudes, and they wanted to marry each other, you could prevent them from doing so?

[KnightofChrist]

CCC 2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.

[eagle_eye222001]

Looking forward to another "Supreme Disappointment" as the Constitution and State's Rights will be ignored and personal whims and feelings will rule the day supported by fallacious logic and artificial reasoning.

 

 

 

To be honest.......I really don't care how they rule........because the only good ruling would be to uphold prop 8 (whether one might think it's good or bad) based on state's rights and strike down DOMA for being a "power grab" not supported by the Constitution.  Since this is VERY UNLIKELY to happen....I'm not going to hold my breath for disappointment.

 

:sam:

 

 

Constitutions get no respect these days.  :sadwalk:

[StMichael]

You mean like the island of Manhattan? Staten Island? Ellis Island?

 

If it is the United States, the people of the state get to be represented via their vote on many issues except those outlined in the Bill of rights (so you can't vote for a state religion nor can you ban religion, etc.).

 

So if you were on an island with two other dudes, and they wanted to marry each other, you could prevent them from doing so?

 

[Winchester]

You mean like the island of Manhattan? Staten Island? Ellis Island?

 

If it is the United States, the people of the state get to be represented via their vote on many issues except those outlined in the Bill of rights (so you can't vote for a state religion nor can you ban religion, etc.).

 

It's a yes or no question.

[StMichael]

Then you need to ask a yes or no question.

 

It's a yes or no question.

 

[Winchester]

Then you need to ask a yes or no question.

 

 

 

So if you were on an island with two other dudes, and they wanted to marry each other, you could prevent them from doing so?

 

Looks like it's either 'yes', or 'no', to me.

[KnightofChrist]

Looks like it's either 'yes', or 'no', to me.

It's really not a yes or no question. It's a trick question, there would never be a marriage between the two men, and the other person wouldn't have to recognize it as a marriage. CCC 2105 would still need to be honored, and it most certainly should be honored by Catholics in our nation. The State has a duty to recognize and honor marriage, and discourage unnatural unions.