Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Manny_DeStefano]

Originally posted by Zoltan Cobert:
On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it had agreed to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court tossed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the federal government is bound to recognize same-sex marriages from states in which they are legal. The justices did not, however, go so far as to declare same-sex marriage a right…yet.

If the Supreme Court can redefine marriage, then is that same Supreme Court not powerful enough to impose its will on those who preach, teach and believe that the only true marriage is that between one man and one woman?

Where does it end? Bakers, florists and photographers are already under assault – just wait until same-sex marriage is a “constitutional right.”

The church should immediately surrender the civil authority of presiding at marriage ceremonies. Most of Europe and South America does not use priests for the civil aspect of marriage. Wearing two hats at a wedding will put priests into a problem when the USSC does manufacture as a constitutional right, gay marriage. Refusing to marry gays, will place them in a civil rights violation issue since they wear Caesar’s civil hat as well as their clerical hat when they preside over the sacrament of marriage. If the state wants gays to marry, let the state marry them. After a man and woman marry before a judge, they can then go to church to receive the sacrament.

 

[SavannahGal]

Loving vs Virginia was the court’s recognition of the will of the people regarding citizenship not sexual preference.

All citizens equally must obey the law. And gay people (who are and always have been citizens) are not EXEMPT from obeying the law just because they dont like it or agree with it.

If you want a new law or new amendment to the Constitution specifically for gay people, or polygamists, or consanguineous relationships, and a new definition of marriage, do it democratically.

Yes, nobody is forcing straight people to marry homosexuals, but neither are homosexuals forced to get married.

How is it possible that the Loving v. Virginia decision reflected the “will of the people” when at the time of the Supreme Court decision in 1967, about 80% of the US population was opposed to the legalization of interracial marriage, an improvement from the 1958 Gallup polls which showed an approval rating of around 5%. I cannot see how portraying this decision as reflecting the “will of the people” has any merit in light of the well documented disapproval of such relationships at the time of the decision.

And in states such as Washington and Maryland, gay marriage was established by a democratic vote. Polls show that if California voted today on gay marriage, it was pass by a sizable margin. This concern about the “will of the people” seems rather disingenuous in light of these facts.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… Secular Progressives have the bully pulpit in the form of the media, Hollywood and social media. …

Don’t forget the prime motivator: academia.

Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact. – Constitutional law professor Lino Graglia.

 

[theBIGyowski]

The church should immediately surrender the civil authority of presiding at marriage ceremonies. Most of Europe and South America does not use priests for the civil aspect of marriage. Wearing two hats at a wedding will put priests into a problem when the USSC does manufacture as a constitutional right, gay marriage. Refusing to marry gays, will place them in a civil rights violation issue since they wear Caesar’s civil hat as well as their clerical hat when they preside over the sacrament of marriage. If the state wants gays to marry, let the state marry them. After a man and woman marry before a judge, they can then go to church to receive the sacrament.

No State can force a priest to marry anyone. If a priest feels that a man and woman should not be married, he has the obligation to not marry them at that time. If a priest can prevent two consenting adults of different genders from being married today…he can do the same for adults of the same gender tomorrow. It’s a legitimate form of “proper discrimination”.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

It is not a question of judging people.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally posted by Zoltan Cobert:
On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it had agreed to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court tossed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the federal government is bound to recognize same-sex marriages from states in which they are legal. The justices did not, however, go so far as to declare same-sex marriage a right…yet.

If the Supreme Court can redefine marriage, then is that same Supreme Court not powerful enough to impose its will on those who preach, teach and believe that the only true marriage is that between one man and one woman?

Where does it end? Bakers, florists and photographers are already under assault – just wait until same-sex marriage is a “constitutional right.”

The church should immediately surrender the civil authority of presiding at marriage ceremonies. Most of Europe and South America does not use priests for the civil aspect of marriage. Wearing two hats at a wedding will put priests into a problem when the USSC does manufacture as a constitutional right, gay marriage. Refusing to marry gays, will place them in a civil rights violation issue since they wear Caesar’s civil hat as well as their clerical hat when they preside over the sacrament of marriage. If the state wants gays to marry, let the state marry them. After a man and woman marry before a judge, they can then go to church to receive the sacrament.

You are probably right about surrendering civil authority.

But…then Catholics will have to “get married” twice. While non religious people are only “married once”. That is discriminatory.

Better the Church should marry ONLY practicing Catholics who abide by the teaching of the Church (Marriage is between one man and one woman) Who else would want a Catholic wedding anyway?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How is it possible that the Loving v. Virginia decision reflected the “will of the people” when at the time of the Supreme Court decision in 1967, about 80% of the US population was opposed to the legalization of interracial marriage, an improvement from the 1958 Gallup polls which showed an approval rating of around 5%. I cannot see how portraying this decision as reflecting the “will of the people” has any merit in light of the well documented disapproval of such relationships at the time of the decision.

And in states such as Washington and Maryland, gay marriage was established by a democratic vote. Polls show that if California voted today on gay marriage, it was pass by a sizable margin. This concern about the “will of the people” seems rather disingenuous in light of these facts.

Right on, SavannahGal.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Here in our REPUBLIC our representatives pass laws. If those laws do not meet Constitutional muster they cannot be laws. Or if they do squeak by they can be ruled unconstitutional and be overturned.

Majority rule or democracy is like having three wolves and two sheep sit down and vote about what they will do for lunch.

 

[Eldee]

The “marriage redefinition” train is moving so fast down the tracks, and with such great inertia, can anyone stop it?
Were you to try… you may be labeled “mean”.
All the while, the silence from the pulpit continues to be deafening.
Thank God for the brave Archbishop from San Francisco, who cries in the wilderness.
Know that In the aftermath, the havoc wrought will be far reaching.

 

[Havard]

I think that is right. For example, it says specifically in the Bible to Call no man Father. It also says that women should wear headcovering in Church. And it also says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”
So I don’t see anyone taking every word in the Bible literally.

The thing people forget is that the Bible is not one book; it is a collection of books with vary different writing styles. Some passages mean exactly and plainly what they say, some require a lot of contextual explanation, and some are allegories, etc. That’s why we have theologians.

So when people say “I don’t take the Bible literally”, I have to ask what they mean. It’s certainly not a universally applicable guiding principle for the totality of Scripture.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
The church should immediately surrender the civil authority of presiding at marriage ceremonies. …

More precisely, the Church should conduct only Holy Matrimony ceremonies. These would not be civilly recognized. Marriage before a judge might not be necessary since counter-culturalists did all the groundwork to get cohabitation legal.

 

[tmcq]

In this corner we have the challenger weighing in at an incredible 89 lbs and suffering from two forms of terminal cancer. In the other corner the heavyweight champ of the world weighing in at 355 lbs of solid muscle Jesssus Chriiiist. wow what a fight!!!