Supreme Court: Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right

[SaintSteveoftheBeard]

For the secular world what is next is marriage between two men and one woman, a father and his daughter, two brothers, etc. As ridiculous as all that sounds once you "legally" define marriage as anything, it can be anything. America will fall from the social cancer within, as Rome did before. Heartbreaking. My wife has a business and has begun to remove herself from social media and most displays of her Catholic faith from fear of those who would come after her business for anything anyone could construe as anti-homosexual. 

 

Welcome me to the new Catholic Underground.

[Credo in Deum]

Gotta love Alabama. 

http://yellowhammernews.com/faithandculture/multiple-alabama-probate-judges-say-they-wont-perform-marriage-ceremonies/

[Dr_Asik]

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.

Assuming that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, but traditional marriage advocates contend precisely that it isn't.

I've seen no shortage of moralist talk from gay marriage advocates either. Isn't accusing of intolerance or unfair discrimination a moral accusation?

[Ash Wednesday]

My first reaction was this

(the irony that it's Dumbledore is not lost on me, but still)

And now after reading reactions on facebook from both sides, I feel like that part in Sense and Sensibility where the entire house is in hysterics and Elinor is just sitting on the stairs, calmly drinking her tea.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Assuming that the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, but traditional marriage advocates contend precisely that it isn't.

I've seen no shortage of moralist talk from gay marriage advocates either. Isn't accusing of intolerance or unfair discrimination a moral accusation?

Discriminatory or not, error has no rights.

[Kateri89]

You know, for quite awhile now I think we've all assumed that this ruling was imminent and inevitable given the current moral state of our culture.  That hasn't made it any less depressing though.  I remember talking to some friends a couple of months ago saying that I believe in the very near future, a gay couple will want to get married in the Catholic Church and when that is denied to them, they will sue.  There will be more shouts of discrimination from every corner of the world and a few more Catholics slinking into the shadows to avoid the insults and stares.  Either that or the priest will in fact perform the marriage ceremony and be excommunicated and the rest of the scenario is pretty much the same as the latter.  People will hail that heretic priest as a hero for standing up to the evil, patriarchal Catholic Church, etc. etc.  As a few people have already expressed, the state of marriage was already in shambles before the SCOTUS ruling so we can't point the finger of blame solely at gay rights activists. 

Though at the end of this depressing post I feel like I really should give a little uplifting truth so please keep two particular Scripture verses in mind right now:

John 15:18 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first."

Romans 5:20 "The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Keep the faith y'all and don't forget that we are still called to love everyone as Christ loves us; yes, even those who hate us.

[Ice_nine]

so, how do we operate in a neo-pagan world? It's a different challenge than the apostles and other early Christians faced. They were tortured and/or killed or faced other bodily threats. That's not so much the case now, but the tactics to run us underground are there they just consist of forcing us out of the public sphere; only accepting religion if it is kept totally private (in other words utterly useless and ineffective).

It's a clever tactic, and it is obviously working. What's worse is the world has hijacked God's message of love and mercy and turned it against his church. I don't think the ancient Romans could claim to be loving and merciful, so this is an extra challenge we face. We should be loving and merciful of course, and not forget that despite our frustrations.

Then there were other times in church history where the church had the political clout to just face stomp anyone who pissed off the wrong cleric. We don't really have that option now.

So I think our time is unique, and I don't know how we should deal with it. I think that's one reason why people are advocating a pre-emptive retreat from the state (e.g. marrying without a civil license)

What shall we do?

[SaintSteveoftheBeard]

I'm going to make a gross overstatement here but in a sense we in America can be better attuned to those in countries that are openly hostile to the faith in either law and/or practice. This can at the least spurn some solidarity with those persecuted Christians. I also think, at this moment, withdrawing the Church from pracitces of state is a good idea. Whether American bishops will take that call remains to be seen. It would be nice to see some fire on the bellies out there amongst our leadership. 

[St Joes Kid]

After some prayer: I don't think this is the beginning of some persecution. 

At first I was afraid that the Church will be forced to perform same-sex marriage or persecuted for not doing so. But forcing the Catholic Church to perform same-sex marriages would be like forcing the church to perform atheist marriages. Atheist marriage has been legal for a long time in this country, but the Church is not persecuted for not performing them.

And I don't see any virulent facebook posts by Catholics about how upset they are that atheist marriage, no-fault divorce, remarriage, or any number of other practices opposed to the sacramental understanding of marriage are legal.  So why so upset over gay marriage? 

Civil law and the moral teachings of the Church have always been different.   I don't think any of us think there should be a Catholic equivalent of Sharia law in this country that regulates morality. That's not the function of the American government.  In this country, the ONLY function of the government should be to protect our lives and liberties. Period.

That means that the government will (and should, to my way of thinking) continue to minimize regulation as far as possible while still protecting each person's rights.

I understand that people are concerned that souls will be lost by the thousands because of the overarching societal norms distancing themselves from the Church's teachings.  But - news flash - the "world" (societal pressure) has ALWAYS been opposed to holiness.  Even at the height of the Church's influence, the "world" was opposed to holiness - and it was opposed from WITHIN the church, which was more insidious, IMO.  

If thousands of souls are lost because the only thing preventing them from doing X was that X civilly legal, then you and I aren't doing our job of evangelizing.  We need to pray that we can do our job better. 

And before starting debates, esp. on facebook and elsewhere, we need to examine our consciences and make sure we say nothing that is not said in love.

Just some thoughts this morning. Not meant to be debatey. Peace!

 

[Nihil Obstat]

But atheists and non Catholics can marry in a perfectly valid manner. It is a natural marriage rather than sacramental, just like anyone, gentile or Jew, from before the time of Christ. Such marriages are a natural good.

[Didacus]

But atheists and non Catholics can marry in a perfectly valid manner. It is a natural marriage rather than sacramental, just like anyone, gentile or Jew, from before the time of Christ. Such marriages are a natural good.

The law cannot prevent consenting adult to enter in a contract; even if said contract is ridiculous.  As long as marriage is seen as a mere contract, anything goes really.

[Credo in Deum]

The law cannot prevent consenting adult to enter in a contract; even if said contract is ridiculous.  As long as marriage is seen as a mere contract, anything goes really.

That's not true since in the U.S. the SC ruled against polygamy under the very premiss that it did not meet the already existing definition that marriage is between one man and one woman and that from this union springs forth the family.

[Norseman82]

That's not true since in the U.S. the SC ruled against polygamy under the very premiss that it did not meet the already existing definition that marriage is between one man and one woman and that from this union springs forth the family.

I wonder if that point was made in the arguments? 

Either way, I see laws against polygamy as the next probable target, followed by laws against prostitution. 

[Credo in Deum]

I wonder if that point was made in the arguments? 

Either way, I see laws against polygamy as the next probable target, followed by laws against prostitution. 

It was made.

 

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

The law cannot prevent consenting adult to enter in a contract; even if said contract is ridiculous.  As long as marriage is seen as a mere contract, anything goes really.

How is this a response to what I said?