The awesome gift of “free will” was bestowed on us and that means that we have the God given ability to think for ourselves and are not bound to follow so-called moral directives thrown at us by others. As a progressive person, I support civil marriage for both straight and LGBTQ humans. As with civil rights from the 60’s, forty years from now people will not believe that at one point in history, gay individuals were not legally allowed to marry the person they love. Those who hold that gay people should not have the right to marry certainly are free to believe that point of view but, the civil law prevails in this country.
There’s a lot that I could get into there, but to stick with the subject of SCOTUS’s “privacy” decrees, e.g. Griswold, I’m curious if you have an answer to a question I posed to liberal posters last month:The awesome gift of “free will” was bestowed on us and that means that we have the God given ability to think for ourselves and are not bound to follow so-called moral directives thrown at us by others. As a progressive person, I support civil marriage for both straight and LGBTQ humans. As with civil rights from the 60’s, forty years from now people will not believe that at one point in history, gay individuals were not legally allowed to marry the person they love. Those who hold that gay people should not have the right to marry certainly are free to believe that point of view but, the civil law prevails in this country.
Edit: If you do have an answer to that, particularly if it is lengthy, then I guess it would be better to post it on that other thread rather than this one.Peter_J said:If you do believe there’s a right to privacy in the Constitution, why does the narrative about it keep changing?
For one thing there’s the fact that the Griswold decision in '65 only applied to contraception for sexual intercourse. But the Lawrence decision in '03 said that, according to their reading of the Constitution, States also couldn’t tell the couple what “sexual acts” were legally permissible.
And then there’s also the question of *which *couples enjoy the right to privacy. If you believe Griswold, the Constitution grants it specifically to married couples; but just a few years later SCOTUS disagreed with its earlier self and extended it to unmarried couples. Then when Lawrence came out we learned that this same Constitution actually extends it to same-gender couples, as it turns out.And then finally we have the fact that Justice O’Connor turned all that completely on its head: according to her the Constitution *does *give states the power to decide whether the right to privacy extends to alternative sex acts, but states just cannot decide differently for same-gender couples than for anyone else.
P.S. I wonder if anyone of the liberal persuasion (Padres or Thorolf are you reading this?) would be willing to say at this point that the real reason the narrative kept changing is that SCOTUS justices were actually influenced by their own (liberal-Protestant) views on morality.
Free will does not change our moral obligations. It just enables us to ignore them.The awesome gift of “free will” was bestowed on us and that means that we have the God given ability to think for ourselves and are not bound to follow so-called moral directives thrown at us by others. As a progressive person, I support civil marriage for both straight and LGBTQ humans. As with civil rights from the 60’s, forty years from now people will not believe that at one point in history, gay individuals were not legally allowed to marry the person they love. Those who hold that gay people should not have the right to marry certainly are free to believe that point of view but, the civil law prevails in this country.
Did you consider it progressive when Loving v Virginia settled the no mixed race marriages laws that made it impossible for couples to marry unless they were of the same race. I have never considered advocating for the Church to change their stance on LGBTQ sacramental marriages, that is significantly above my pay grade. The majority of my friends at our huge parish are much like me - they are cradle Catholics that believe in the Real Presence and attend mass weekly. What this group of BabyBoomers do have trouble following is the dogma concerning artificial birth control and the homophobic attitudes of some very traditional Church members. In other words, the problem has never been the theology, but the man-made rules that have little to do with how we live life in 2017.
But there’s a fundamental difference compared with the Loving vs Virginia case, because what I and other conservatives are saying isn’t a matter of stopping people from doing what they want to; we’re saying that regardless of what a same-sex couple does (e.g. having a ceremony) they still aren’t married.
Koz, are you able to answer the questions I put to you? This post appears to seek to change the subject.Did you consider it progressive when Loving v Virginia settled the no mixed race marriages laws that made it impossible for couples to marry unless they were of the same race. I have never considered advocating for the Church to change their stance on LGBTQ sacramental marriages, that is significantly above my pay grade. The majority of my friends at our huge parish are much like me - they are cradle Catholics that believe in the Real Presence and attend mass weekly. What this group of BabyBoomers do have trouble following is the dogma concerning artificial birth control and the homophobic attitudes of some very traditional Church members. In other words, the problem has never been the theology, but the man-made rules that have little to do with how we live life in 2017.
Yes, I am interested in this too.
I guess the word “valid” implies a context. If the context is the legal framework we attach to marriage, then it government recognition is required.
Re: Bp Barron or anyone else,
Here’s the thing: when this was on the ballot in CA, some Christian leaders weren’t in favour of it because of “homophobia”.
People in good conscience may disagree, but if we are going to fall for progressive gimmicks, one-liners, phobias, -ists and -isms we may as well throw in the towel and stop wasting time and energy. So let’s just throw up our hands and baptize the scribes.
Re: Bp Barron or anyone else,
That’s a different question of course.
I see your point, but let me elaborate on what I said …
There is not a shared understanding of marriage between the two groups. The only meaning understood by some is that which arises from the civil/legal process. Therefore, for the pro-SSM group, there was a time when they could not marry, and now they can.
For the gay person seeking SS marriage, how else can they seek to have “that” relationship elevated to the same level as marriage if the government refuses recognition? [Drawing an analogy with a high school friendship does not seem relevant.]
