Supreme Court: Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right

[CrossCuT]

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/same-sex-marraige-legal-nationwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551

[KnightofChrist]

I wonder if the Church and other christian communities will be forced to also provide same-sex marriages and if so will they serve jail time if they do not?

[Seven77]

God help us.

[Winchester]

I wonder if the Church and other christian communities will be forced to also provide same-sex marriages and if so will they serve jail time if they do not?

Impossible. The State is the arbiter of justice, the entity that will eliminate poverty and violence. The thing that must be obeyed because no man is so smart as one who occupies political office.

Maybe if that happens, the Church will finally rethink her unholy alliance with the State.

 

 

[Anomaly]

Impossible. The State is the arbiter of justice, the entity that will eliminate poverty and violence. The thing that must be obeyed because no man is so smart as one who occupies political office.

Maybe if that happens, the Church will finally rethink her unholy alliance with the State.

 

 

The Church is no different than the State in its desire to rule.  They just lost their ability to convince people they're divinely empowered.   Same game, different name.   The chosen  few to rule them all. 

[Credo in Deum]

God help us.

God have mercy on us!

I wonder if the Church and other christian communities will be forced to also provide same-sex marriages and if so will they serve jail time if they do not?

Jail time I will gladly serve.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[franciscanheart]

Let's not be complete buffoons, people. There is still such a thing as religious liberty.

[Luigi]

Let's not be complete buffoons, people. There is still such a thing as religious liberty.

At the moment.

[Nihil Obstat]

Freedom of religion is only a conditional freedom.

42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

[Anomaly]

The Church is no different than the State in its desire to rule.  They just lost their ability to convince people they're divinely empowered.   Same game, different name.   The chosen  few to rule them all. 

why the negative down votes?   I stated no opinion on whether or not the Church leadership/rulers are divinely empowered or not.  Just stating that it lost it's ability to convince the populace of it's authority. 

Or do you fundamentally disagree the Church desires to direct/influence/rule the behavior of people?

The correlation is neither really is really accommodating ot tolerating different opinions.  

[dominicansoul]

Official statement from my Bishop:

Official Statement
June 26, 2015
Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller
Re: United States Supreme Court decision concerning same-sex marriage

...

 I am profoundly troubled by the decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court concerning Same-Sex “marriage.”    The Catholic Church will continue to proclaim the truth about marriage in our pulpits and in the public square. I join my brother       bishops across the nation calling today's decision a "tragic error."
 In Catholic teaching about the sanctity of marriage, it is clear that the union of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony is  more than a human convention or a legal contract, it is a sacred bond that reflects a great reality both in Natural Law and in our  deepest held beliefs.
 In our wedding liturgy we pray: "Father, to reveal the plan of your love, you made the union of husband and wife an image of the    covenant between you and your people. In the fulfillment of this sacrament, the marriage of Christian man and woman is a sign   of the marriage between Christ and the Church."
 It is our belief that God is the author of marriage as a holy covenant between a man and a woman as a blessing to both. The   Catholic Catechism teaches; "By creating man and woman he called them to an intimate communion of life and of love in   marriage: 'So they are no longer two but one flesh....By its very nature it is ordered to the communion and good of the couple and  to the generation and education of children."
 Catholic teaching that that marriage is a loving union between a man and a woman is not intended to be exclusively a  prohibition,   but even more, a proclamation of God's love of humanity, and the beauty of love itself. In this way the Church    carries out the Father’s plan, enriching the lives of the married couple and serving the common good. 
 With love and respect to every human person, the Church will continue to invite men and women, regardless of their sexual   orientation, to walk their journey of faith with us, discovering God's plan for them and for all society. However, it is not within our  power to recognize this redefinition of marriage nor participate in this misrepresentation of what we believe to be a sacred union   created and reserved to one man and one woman. 
 Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller

 

[zabbazooey]

Don't worry, the government is not going to force churches to celebrate/recognize same sex marriages. You'll still have the freedom to discriminate as much as you please. All while patting yourselves on the back for your moral superiority.

[Socrates]

Absolutely shameful.  (Though, sadly, not unexpected.)

This is a day that will live in infamy, and should be a national day of prayer and fasting for Catholics.

It's a loss for religious liberty and moral principle, as well as for the Constitution those jokers in black are supposed to uphold.  (As the Constitution says nothing about marriage, federal courts have absolutely no lawful power to define it at all.  If the "justices" were upholding the constitution, they'd have thrown this case out.)

This Supreme Court is an absolute disgrace.

[Luigi]

Don't worry, the government is not going to force churches to celebrate/recognize same sex marriages. You'll still have the freedom to discriminate as much as you please. All while patting yourselves on the back for your moral superiority.

From Hillary Clinton, who stands a good chance of being the next president. (I don't necessarily agree with everything written on this page, but I include the link here because it has a video of her actual words.)

http://shoebat.com/2015/04/24/hilary-clinton-christians-in-america-must-deny-their-faith-in-christianity/

[Socrates]

I wonder if the Church and other christian communities will be forced to also provide same-sex marriages and if so will they serve jail time if they do not?

Maybe not immediately, though this wouldn't shock me if it happened sometime down the road.  The left seems hell-bent on eliminating all pockets of resistance.

Legal experts have said during the preliminary hearings that this could very well mean churches losing their tax exempt status.

And, of course, kids in all public schools will be forced to learn about same-sex "marriage" as a legitimate option.

 

Let's not be complete buffoons, people. There is still such a thing as religious liberty.

. . . being rapidly eroded as we type.

[vee]

I know what comes next, the legalization of same sex divorce! 

[Era Might]

I thought this was just silliness:

 

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.

Highest ideals? Two people become something greater than they once were? Love that endures past death? These are pretty bold philosophical assertions, not to mention a pious/romantic view of marriage. I love the reference to loneliness...who knew, all these writers and poets writing about love and loneliness for thousands of years, and the Supreme Court had the answer all along...marriage! Why didn't anyone ever think of that!

I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where the dentist becomes a Jew to tell jokes, and Jerry says it doesn't offend him as a Jew, it offends him as a comedian. That's how I feel about this pious blather...it offends me as an intelligent human being...if you want to legalize it, then do it, but don't think that this is not an assertion beyond law...this is a vision of human nature, metaphysics, history ("one of civilization's oldest institutions" used to be polygamous), and apparently, the afterlife.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

why the negative down votes?   I stated no opinion on whether or not the Church leadership/rulers are divinely empowered or not.  Just stating that it lost it's ability to convince the populace of it's authority. 

Or do you fundamentally disagree the Church desires to direct/influence/rule the behavior of people?

The correlation is neither really is really accommodating ot tolerating different opinions.  

I'm not sure that is a statement based in truth. For most of the US populace that was actually allowed to vote on the matter most voted against it, even California, giving evidence that counters your opinion. I think in total it was 50 million, 50 million people had their votes nullified by 5 people. Whether or not one supports the SCOTUS ruling today, that is very dangerous.

[franciscanheart]

I'm not sure that is a statement based in truth. For most of the US populace that was actually allowed to vote on the matter most voted against it, even California, giving evidence that counters your opinion. I think in total it was 50 million, 50 million people had their votes nullified by 5 people. Whether or not one supports the SCOTUS ruling today, that is very dangerous.

By my calculations, that leaves 268.9 million Americans.

[CrossCuT]

I would support this being decided by the people however I honestly believe it would have the same outcome. Winds of change have begun.

Next lets ban the Confederate flag pls.

Edited June 26, 2015 by CrossCuT