Catholic Supreme Court to Ratify Same-Sex Marriage?

[Charlemagne_III]

There are six Catholics on our Supreme Court who will decide by June whether to ratify same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right.

How do you think the Court will vote?

On what philosophical principle will the majority be likely to vote in your opinion?

How do you think the Catholic Justices will vote, keeping in mind that the only Catholic on the Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade voted in favor of Roe.

Thank you.

 

[Bahman]

There are six Catholics on our Supreme Court who will decide by June whether to ratify same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right.

How do you think the Court will vote?

On what philosophical principle will the majority be likely to vote in your opinion?

How do you think the Catholic Justices will vote, keeping in mind that the only Catholic on the Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade voted in favor of Roe.

Thank you.

That is people body you are free to do whatever you like as far as you have a safe sex, hence it is their right. Who do they think they are!?

 

[AyJSimon]

There are six Catholics on our Supreme Court who will decide by June whether to ratify same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right.

How do you think the Court will vote?

On what philosophical principle will the majority be likely to vote in your opinion?

How do you think the Catholic Justices will vote, keeping in mind that the only Catholic on the Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade voted in favor of Roe.

Thank you.

Justice Kennedy is the swing vote, and unless something has changed since he shot down DOMA 18 months ago, the vote will be 5-4 to legalize SSM.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is people body you are free to do whatever you like as far as you have a safe sex, hence it is their right. Who do they think they are!?

That is not the issue. The issue is whether they can marry, not whether they can have sex. Obviously, if someone wants to have sex with their donkey or marry their donkey, that also is **not **before the Supreme Court.

 

[CommonWeal]

Don’t expect any truly profound doctrinal corrections from the Court. If same-sex marriage loses, it will be on state’s rights grounds.

 

[cmodrmac]

what makes you think that they would follow Catholic teaching?

Every person executed has prior to execution has an appeal to the Supreme Court - the Justices have not stopped the executions for "the reason on catholic teaching " on the death penalty

I am not aware of any legal texts that cite “catholic teachings” as supporting factors

Kennedy is Catholic -Thomas was an Episcopalean for many years-I believe Sotomayor is non practicing-they do not act like a voting block-Sotomayor and Scalia are at opposite ends of the spectrum to think they would settle an arguement via Catholic teaching is absurd

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

There could be 9 Catholic justices, but that wouldn’t make it the “Catholic Supreme Court.”

 

[Rhubarb]

I should hope the Justices will vote according to the Constitution of the United States, and not allow their religious convictions to enter into it at all.

 

[Bayoubeefmaster]

Sadly, I don’t have much faith all in the justices. One Can only pray that they are shown the truth.

 

[KathleenB17]

DISCLAIMER: I know there are going to be many who are going to disagree with me here, but please keep in mind these are my own personal beliefs and I do not want to offend anyone. Also, I am not very well versed in the subject, so for all I know I have no clue what I’m talking about.

I personally do not believe that gay marriage is morally right, but I also do not think it should be against the law–at least in the United States. When this country was founded, it was founded on the separation of church and state, so no, I do not think it is constitutional to ban gay marriage. Obviously I do not think that it is morally right to participate in such acts, but it also should not be the government’s business.

Like I said before I do not want to offend anyone, and I also am not “pro gay marriage,” but this is just my constitutional view on the situation.

 

[petra22]

Obviously, if someone wants to have sex with their donkey or marry their donkey, that also is **not **before the Supreme Court.

This is on the NEXT agenda!!!

 

[Regina7]

DISCLAIMER: I know there are going to be many who are going to disagree with me here, but please keep in mind these are my own personal beliefs and I do not want to offend anyone. Also, I am not very well versed in the subject, so for all I know I have no clue what I’m talking about.

I personally do not believe that gay marriage is morally right, but I also do not think it should be against the law–at least in the United States. When this country was founded, it was founded on the separation of church and state, so no, I do not think it is constitutional to ban gay marriage. Obviously I do not think that it is morally right to participate in such acts, but it also should not be the government’s business.

Like I said before I do not want to offend anyone, and I also am not “pro gay marriage,” but this is just my constitutional view on the situation.

The whole seperation of church and state argument has been taken completely out of context. It was written to keep the government out of church, NOT the church out of government.

 

[Hodegetria]

I should hope the Justices will vote according to the Constitution of the United States, and not allow their religious convictions to enter into it at all.

Yes, agree with this. Their job is to interpret the Constitution; their personal religious beliefs should play NO part in their decisions.

You know, we can’t even determine the “original meaning” in our 200-yr old Constitution written in English, with plenty of supporting documents. Is it any wonder there’s so much fighting over the Bible, written in ancient languages by various authors, at least 2,000 years ago?
Edit: That’s why I depend upon the Magesterium.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Don’t expect any truly profound doctrinal corrections from the Court. If same-sex marriage loses, it will be on state’s rights grounds.

Yes I believe the court does not want Roe v Wade 2…in other words sweeping federal legislation that steps on states rights.

I’m hopeful they will determine it is up to the states and their citizens to decide.

 

[Frankenfurter]

They will invent a constitutional right (in a 5-4 split) and deny states the right to protect families by defining marriage as being between a man and a women.

All of this will be inappropriately covered by the media as a victory for gay ‘rights’ (marriage actually is a social responsibility not a right) and no one will mention what effect the erosion of the protection of families has on children.

BTW: Today, almost half of the children born are born out of marriage.

slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/06/for_millennials_out_of_wedlock_childbirth_is_the_norm_now_what.html

 

[Sy_Noe]

DISCLAIMER: I know there are going to be many who are going to disagree with me here, but please keep in mind these are my own personal beliefs and I do not want to offend anyone. Also, I am not very well versed in the subject, so for all I know I have no clue what I’m talking about.

I personally do not believe that gay marriage is morally right, but I also do not think it should be against the law–at least in the United States. When this country was founded, it was founded on the separation of church and state, so no, I do not think it is constitutional to ban gay marriage. Obviously I do not think that it is morally right to participate in such acts, but it also should not be the government’s business.

Like I said before I do not want to offend anyone, and I also am not “pro gay marriage,” but this is just my constitutional view on the situation.

You are correct in that if the justices find a ban to be unconstitutional as so many lower courts have done so, then as other posters have said they should not let their Catholic religious beliefs interfere. Their jobs as SCOTUS justices is not the same as if they were justices in a religious state.

 

[oldcelt]

You are correct in that if the justices find a ban to be unconstitutional as so many lower courts have done so, then as other posters have said they should not let their Catholic religious beliefs interfere. Their jobs as SCOTUS justices is not the same as if they were justices in a religious state.

Precisely…this is not a theocracy. Decisions, such as this, must be made on legal precedent in the United States. JFK said this 60 years ago.

John

 

[Bran_Stark]

Precisely…this is not a theocracy. Decisions, such as this, must be made on legal precedent in the United States. JFK said this 60 years ago.

John

I think there is a huge difference between how the religious beliefs of a judge should inform his work and how the religious beliefs of a president should inform his work.

A Catholic judge who rules that the Constitution requires same-sex marriage would not necessarily be sinning against the Catholic faith, since it might be his sincere belief that the Constitution DOES require it. It’s a question of pure fact, not morality.

On the other hand, a Catholic president who signed a bill establishing same-sex marriage would definitely be sinning against the Catholic faith, since the president’s job is to decide what ought to happen, not what is.

 

[Personanongrata]

I should hope the Justices will vote according to the Constitution of the United States, and not allow their religious convictions to enter into it at all.

 

[Frankenfurter]

The whole seperation of church and state argument has been taken completely out of context. It was written to keep the government out of church, NOT the church out of government.

Agreed

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Article VI, United States Constitution.

and

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (Declaration of Independence)

If we succumb to the attitude that most of the other posters here have given, namely that the justices must NOT base any of their decision on their religion, then we are violating the constitution directly. We are applying a religions test, namely that the justices must have NO religion.