Supreme Court: Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right

[das8949]

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?

No this morning it was explained that this is a legal decision about same sex couple rights and benefits assigned to a heterosexual couple. He further state churches do not have to perform ceremonies they are not comfortable with.

 

[das8949]

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

No it would just be a divorce. like gay marriage is no longer the verbiage. It is just marriage

[little2add]

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.

I don't really give a fig with the government allows or does not allow.  Traditional marriage is dead...  It has been for a long time: divorce, abortion, pornography, drug abuse, etc. Has taken its toll.

[Credo in Deum]

No it would just be a divorce. like gay marriage is no longer the verbiage. It is just marriage

It can't be divorce since it's not marriage.  This is why we always refer to it as gay "marriage".

Which in hindsight was stupid since it put those two words next to each other when they can't be since it's an oxymoron similar to the phrase, Pro-choice Catholic. 

[Maggyie]

 Just have to add my lols to Anomoly's comments about how moderns are oh so much more thoughtful than people a couple hundred years ago. Believe it or not EVERY generation thinks that way about itself... One of my favorite professors at school had us read an essay full of similar gloats and guess the time and place of the author. The correct answer was the dawn of the Weimar Republic. 

[Norseman82]

The handbasket has achieved warp speed.....

[Norseman82]

Next lets ban the Confederate flag pls.

I would have accepted a Confederate flag ban in return for a ban on gay marriage.  I wonder how many southerners will use that as a bagaining chip....

Edited June 26, 2015 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

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? 

 

It may depend on what shape the second amendment is in....

[Norseman82]

OK, so if this is all about "equality", can I sue to get access to the mothers' breatfeeding room?  After all, I'm being denied "equality" in my access to something on the basis of my gender.....

[Jaime]

What next? Are they going to want to vote now?

[KnightofChrist]

I would have accepted a Confederate flag ban in return for a ban on gay marriage.  I wonder how many southerners will use that as a bagaining chip....

Nah, no deals, no exchanges. Let's go ahead and banned any speech that isn't approved by the Democrat Party. We should just stop playing the waiting game and jump head first into leftist fascism.

[Winchester]

Don't pervert the Church's traditional social teachings for your political beliefs.

There's a lot of personal opinion going around as social teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

There's a lot of personal opinion going around as social teaching.

That may be but the Church has not and does not share the anarchist opinions about states. Accusing the Church of near idolatry went to far.

[Nihil Obstat]

That may be but the Church has not and does not share the anarchist opinions about states. 

Fully agreed. In fact the anarcho-capitalist line of reasoning is incompatible with Catholic social teaching. 

 

Edited June 27, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[ardillacid]

[Winchester]

That may be but the Church has not and does not share the anarchist opinions about states. Accusing the Church of near idolatry went to far.

If I had meant "the Church" in my statement, I would have written "the Church". I probably should have put "some" in front of Catholics.

God seems to take a dim view of kings. I think Gerard Casey put it quite well when he said that things like property, and government were both the result of sin and, paradoxically, a cure for it. I say authority resides in action, not the person. Take a contract with a plumber to fix a toilet. He has authority to fix your toilet. He has authority to demand payment. He does not have authority to muck about with your living room. The State claims that authority resides in itself. The State never brooks rebellion of any sort. The best the constitution gives is "petitioning", but guess who has sole legal review over the petition?

Feudalism, with its basis for right to rule in contract and private property, would be the closest one could possibly come to a Catholic form of governance. The complexity of rule prior to the modern state seems to escape us to a greater or lesser degree. The mutual obligation the Church believes exists between ruler and ruled simply does not exist in the mind of the modern state. You obey or you suffer violence if you don't like something, you petition beg your rulers for a change. Until that change comes about, you are wrong and the state is right. There is no compromise. That's tyranny, and stands in contradiction to "In doubtful matters, liberty" (a guidance for rule in the Church, perhaps, but certainly a good rule of thumb in disputes with other mere humans).

Too often, people jump from moral opinion into recommending policy. Poverty is terrible. Destroying the means of escaping poverty (in themselves unpleasant) is worse.

 

[KnightofChrist]

If I had meant "the Church" in my statement, I would have written "the Church". I probably should have put "some" in front of Catholics.

Yes, that would have made it clearer. Without "some" in front of Catholics I read your statement as directed towards Catholics as a whole, Catholics as a whole are the Church.

God seems to take a dim view of kings. I think Gerard Casey put it quite well when he said that things like property, and government were both the result of sin and, paradoxically, a cure for it. I say authority resides in action, not the person. Take a contract with a plumber to fix a toilet. He has authority to fix your toilet. He has authority to demand payment. He does not have authority to muck about with your living room. The State claims that authority resides in itself. The State never brooks rebellion of any sort. The best the constitution gives is "petitioning", but guess who has sole legal review over the petition?

Feudalism, with its basis for right to rule in contract and private property, would be the closest one could possibly come to a Catholic form of governance. The complexity of rule prior to the modern state seems to escape us to a greater or lesser degree. The mutual obligation the Church believes exists between ruler and ruled simply does not exist in the mind of the modern state. You obey or you suffer violence if you don't like something, you petition beg your rulers for a change. Until that change comes about, you are wrong and the state is right. There is no compromise. That's tyranny, and stands in contradiction to "In doubtful matters, liberty" (a guidance for rule in the Church, perhaps, but certainly a good rule of thumb in disputes with other mere humans).

Too often, people jump from moral opinion into recommending policy. Poverty is terrible. Destroying the means of escaping poverty (in themselves unpleasant) is worse.

 

Would the anarchist view even be compatible with the theocratic state of King David? I do not see how, but It's too early in the morning to debate, maybe later but I doubt it. I just don't believe in Anarchism nor is compatible with Catholic social teaching.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just because the modern state's beliefs about the nature of its authority are incorrect - and they certainly are - it does not follow that it has no authority in the first place.

[Winchester]

Yes, that would have made it clearer. Without "some" in front of Catholics I read your statement as directed towards Catholics as a whole, Catholics as a whole are the Church.

Would the anarchist view even be compatible with the theocratic state of King David? I do not see how, but It's too early in the morning to debate, maybe later but I doubt it. I just don't believe in Anarchism nor is compatible with Catholic social teaching.

I'd have to understand far more about his claims to rule than I know right now, but it's possible. Depends on the species of anarchist, too. Some would recoil at the mere term. Of course, if one believes God issued orders, then David becomes right in whatever actions are directly ordered by God, from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

 

I see the market as the best means of dealing with scarcity. That doesn't mean it always falls in accord with morality (including stewardship). It is possible that one might need to tolerate a smaller evil (Aquinas uses prostitution, although his basis I think is a bit silly) to avoid a larger one. The alleged evil of child labor (I think an evil of the fallen world as opposed to necessarily a moral evil) led people to abolish it in Bangladesh before production levels made it possible. This led to child prostitution as child labor was pushed onto the black market. Unintended consequences don't care about the motivation of reformers.

[Winchester]

Just because the modern state's beliefs about the nature of its authority are incorrect - and they certainly are - it does not follow that it has no authority in the first place.

Didn't say it lacks all authority. Where it accords with justice, it has authority. But then again, so do you or I. I think we're all chosen to rule, and to rule only in accord with what is just (although God seems pretty keen on mercy so I'd reckon it advisable to keep that in mind). I reject that there really is a ruling class. I reject that a small number of people can meet in a room, set up rules for a territory they don't own, and then inflict those rules upon everyone without asking.