Anomaly Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 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. knight, that is my point. SCOTUS. Did not really listen to the people or allow accommodations for differing opinion. That ultimately leads one to think the tolerance of some religions' ability to opt out will be eliminated. The Church and religions have failed at making the distinction between promoting the ideal vs outlawing anything else. Both a dig at Winnie's constant anti-authority rants and a dig against a one dimensional argument of simply "because God said so". Given that other Christian religions have retreated from defending heterosexual marriage except Catholics and Muslims, it's apparently an unconvincing argument and open to interpretation and debate. The down votes are a sign of typical thoughtless toadyism and no wonder engagement intellectually, theologically, and philosophically isn't seriously attempted. Civilization's masses are generally more educated, intelligent, and thoughtful now then three hundred or two thousand years ago.
Winchester Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Let's not bicker and argue about who married who...
Era Might Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 As far as the apocalyptic fury, this isn't going to ruin America. If "God" could bear with America's enslavement of millions he can bear with the admittance of homosexuals into the American middle class. As long as the empire is making money and winning wars, people will be satisfied. That's the way it is. Take away people's bread, then you'll see problems. Married homosexuals are a great boon for American business....more families to market to.
Era Might Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Civilization's masses are generally more educated, intelligent, and thoughtful now then three hundred or two thousand years ago. At the risk of going off-topic...how so? Drop someone today in a society 3,000 years ago and they wouldn't last a day. Drop someone from 3,000 years ago into today and they would probably be fine...they'd get social assistance, help, whatever. To me, that doesn't say we're more educated, but that we live through institutions and have our lives taken care for us. Someone 3,000 years ago could probably engage in hand-to-hand battle, hunt their own food, grow their own crops, etc. Someone today doesn't have to...they pay taxes to soldiers who fight for them, pay writers to give them stuff to read, pay teachers to do their reading for them, etc. The trending hashtag on Twitter right now is #LoveWins...that's what being "thoughtful" is to us, a hashtag with a meaningless phrase like Love Wins.
Socrates Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 knight, that is my point. SCOTUS. Did not really listen to the people or allow accommodations for differing opinion. That ultimately leads one to think the tolerance of some religions' ability to opt out will be eliminated. The bigger issue from a legal/constitutional standpoint is why did the SCOTUS even hear and decide on this case in the first place? According to the U.S. Constitution, the powers of the federal government are carefully defined and limited. Nowhere does the Constitution grant federal courts the power to define "marriage." All moral arguments aside, this was another case of federal judicial overreach. According to the Constitution, such matters should be left entirely to the respective states and the people. Whether the people in every state would vote this way anyway (so far they have not) is a moot point. Would those cheering the SCOTUS decision be so supportive had the court decided the other way? Why should every single issue be dictated to the entire country by nine unelected people in black robes? That's not a constitutional republic. It's tyranny.
Ash Wednesday Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Eh... do I just save everyone the time and just move this to the debate table, or.....?
veritasluxmea Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 There is still such a thing as religious liberty. I think the main concern is if both are constitutional rights; what happens when they but heads? Someone claims the constitutional right to "marry" and someone claims the constitutional right of religious freedom? Which right will be supreme?
dominicansoul Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Statement on Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage by another bishop...emphasis mine AUSTIN – Bishop Joe S. Váquez, bishop of the Diocese of Austin, released the following statement, today: I am deeply saddened by the Supreme Court’s decision to require States to recognize same-sex marriages, because the opinion is based on the court’s belief that the culture has changed its views of marriage. This causes confusion among those who are faithful to the Gospel and erodes rights of persons in each State. ... Regardless of the court’s decision, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. We will remain true and faithful to the Gospel and we will continue to call people to look deeply into the beauty of our theology of marriage and to come to a full understanding of a true sacramental marriage. Jesus taught that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. We follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth. I join my brother bishops in encouraging the faithful to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who disagree with our faith and moral convictions. We intend to proclaim the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia.
vee Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 We heterosexuals have been trashing marriage for years. We desecrate it with birth control, with porn, with having sex with that person before marriage. We are awash in failure heart break and the misery of divorce. This ruling just means that there will be more misery and heartbreak because I seriously doubt the homosexuals who "marry" will have any more success at it than heterosexual unions.
Seven77 Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 We heterosexuals have been trashing marriage for years. We desecrate it with birth control, with porn, with having sex with that person before marriage. We are awash in failure heart break and the misery of divorce. This ruling just means that there will be more misery and heartbreak because I seriously doubt the homosexuals who "marry" will have any more success at it than heterosexual unions. Reminds me of this quote: "Those manning the barricades describe themselves as 'defending marriage.' That is a deep inaccuracy: marriage, as an institution, was surrendered quite some time ago. Today's battles are not about marriage but simply about dividing the spoils of its destruction. It is too late to defend marriage. Rather than being defended, marriage needs to be taught and lived." -Fr. Stephen Freeman
little2add Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Divorce and birth control via abortion has all but destroyed the foundation of marriage and the holy family. Today’s Supreme Court decision is just one more nail in the coffin. No good will or can come from it. Edited June 26, 2015 by little2add
Winchester Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Divorce and birth control via abortion has all but destroyed the foundation of marriage and the holy family. Today’s Supreme Court decision is just one more nail in the coffin. No good will or can come from it. If the government is the source of family values, we're screwed. The opinion Catholics have of the place the State has in society is borderline idolatrous.Stop looking to sociopaths for guidance.
KnightofChrist Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 By my calculations, that leaves 268.9 million Americans. Yes, they either didn't get the chance to vote, voted against or didn't vote in the states that voted for or against state constitutional amendments that defined marriage between one man and one woman. In a similar manner 5 unelected persons disenfranchised a great many people, more than 50 million.
KnightofChrist Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 If the government is the source of family values, we're screwed. The opinion Catholics have of the place the State has in society is borderline idolatrous.Stop looking to sociopaths for guidance. Don't pervert the Church's traditional social teachings for your political beliefs.
dUSt Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 It was legalized, but not sacramentalized. A legal bond between two people and a piece of paper--not a sacramental bond between two people and God. I'm not discriminating either--this goes for every marriage outside of the Church. Heterosexual or homosexual. Doesn't matter. Contraception separated sex from procreation. Sex is no longer viewed as nature intended, but as a pleasure or activity. It led to the over objectification of women and the breakup of the family--and now, procreation has been separated from civil marriage. Marriage is no longer the foundation of a family, but a legal right.--and the family is no longer the foundation of society--but something that gets in the way of "progress".
Peace Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 The bigger issue from a legal/constitutional standpoint is why did the SCOTUS even hear and decide on this case in the first place? Take a look at Marbury v. Madison. Why should every single issue be dictated to the entire country by nine unelected people in black robes? That's not a constitutional republic. It's tyranny. I would not go that far. Take a look at the point that Justice Scalia makes at the end of his dissent. The Supreme Court is not an institution that by itself has power to enforce anything. Any power that it has ultimately derives from us. We are bound by its decisions only to the extent that we choose to respect its decisions.
Lilllabettt Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 The bigger issue from a legal/constitutional standpoint is why did the SCOTUS even hear and decide on this case in the first place? they heard it because thats what judicial review is. The entire system is built around the principle of judicial review. today is a stay off the internet day
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now