Catholic Supreme Court to Ratify Same-Sex Marriage?

[Charlemagne_III]

what makes you think that they would follow Catholic teaching?

I don’t think Catholics who rise to powerful positions in government can be trusted to vote like Catholics. They are more likely to go against Church teachings rather than to follow Church teachings.

But I don’t see how you can compartmentalize in these matters. If you are a right thinking Catholic Justice, you should believe what the Church teaches. Endorsing same-sex marriage by government fiat means endorsing a host of evils that have never existed in any civilization until our time. Then the enemies of the Church will point to these Catholic Justices as proof that the influence of the Catholic teachings regarding sexual matters is completely and possibly permanently dead in America, as it is mostly dead everywhere else in the world.

No doubt, some of the anti-Catholic posters in this forum will rejoice in that prospect.

The Catholic teachings on sexual matters are not just the reflection of a religious bias. They are a reflection of common sense. The Catholic Justices who reject the teachings of the Church are rejecting common sense, and the common sense of civilizations throughout the world since the dawn of human history. But just as the only Catholic on the Supreme Court at the time of Roe v Wade voted for Roe, I expect several Catholics on the Supreme court to help in the annihilation of common sense sexual and family values.

It’s inevitable, isn’t it?

 

[ARSpade]

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.

Kennedy claimed in that decision that marriage was a State’s Rights issues and the federal government had no right to make a decision about marriage. So, technically, he should vote that this is entirely up to the states.

Of course, I expect him (as the DOMA dissent implied) that he’ll basically make his previous statement a lie and ignore the state’s right to decide. Something like , “It’s the state’s right to decide what marriage is so long as they do exactly what we tell them to do.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Kennedy claimed in that decision that marriage was a State’s Rights issues and the federal government had no right to make a decision about marriage. So, technically, he should vote that this is entirely up to the states.

Of course, I expect him (as the DOMA dissent implied) that he’ll basically make his previous statement a lie and ignore the state’s right to decide. Something like , “It’s the state’s right to decide what marriage is so long as they do exactly what we tell them to do.”

Whichever way the Court rules, it’s likely to rule with pretzel logic.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think Catholics who rise to powerful positions in government can be trusted to vote like Catholics. They are more likely to go against Church teachings rather than to follow Church teachings. . . It’s inevitable, isn’t it?

You don’t get into those societal positions unless you adopt their values.

I don’t think it’s derailing the thread to post a recent youtube video by Fr Barron concerning the state of philosophy departments today:

youtube.com/watch?v=lGQ-nWOZrok

I know things are bad in the sciences. I don’t imagine you will find an Obs/Gyne MD who is against abortion anywhere.
That this exists in the courts seems to have been obvious for a while.
Philosophers too. Oh No!

 

[Bradski]

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.

I think that you’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope…

 

[KathleenB17]

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.

See? I have been proven wrong. I told you I don’t know what I’m talking about

Have a blessed day!

 

[KathleenB17]

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.

You learn something new every day! Apologies!

 

[Frankenfurter]

I think that you’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope…

Forcing people to ignore their religious beliefs when making decisions as a federal officer or judge is a de-facto religious test and is therefore explicitly not allowed by the constitution.

This is why it is considered appropriate for new candidates to be asked to explain how their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, will play out in their decision making process. It is assumed that their religious beliefs WILL be a factor and therefore we as a people have a right to know how this will play out. But it is a constitutionally protected right that people are not forced to give up their religious beliefs, or be forced to adhere to any religion.

Nowhere does it say or imply that one must discard one’s own religious beliefs. Quite the contrary in fact. To force people to ignore their religion would assume that religion is only a private matter. But this view is only held by a minority of religions. Therefore, to force people to treat religion as a private matter is a de-facto religious test.

Our current system allows for people, including judges to include their religious beliefs as part of their decision making process. Which is why we are allowed to inquire how their religion will affect their decision making process. This is all carefully protected by the constitution, and is in fact the only place where religion is mentioned.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I think that you’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope…

Forcing people to ignore their religious beliefs when making decisions as a federal officer or judge is a de-facto religious test and is therefore explicitly not allowed by the constitution.

This is why it is considered appropriate for new candidates to be asked to explain how their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, will play out in their decision making process. It is assumed that their religious beliefs WILL be a factor and therefore we as a people have a right to know how this will play out. But it is a constitutionally protected right that people are not forced to give up their religious beliefs, or be forced to adhere to any religion.

Nowhere does it say or imply that one must discard one’s own religious beliefs. Quite the contrary in fact. To force people to ignore their religion would assume that religion is only a private matter. But this view is only held by a minority of religions. Therefore, to force people to treat religion as a private matter is a de-facto religious test.

Our current system allows for people, including judges to include their religious beliefs as part of their decision making process. Which is why we are allowed to inquire how their religion will affect their decision making process. This is all carefully protected by the constitution, and is in fact the only place where religion is mentioned.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Forcing people to ignore their religious beliefs when making decisions as a federal officer or judge is a de-facto religious test and is therefore explicitly not allowed by the constitution.

Also, a man or woman cannot be forced to vote against his conscience … that is, if he has one.

 

[inocente]

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

Whichever way they vote, they are obliged by their oath to uphold the Rule of Law.

“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” - supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

*"Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, “The rule of law is better than that of any individual.”

For the UN, the Secretary-General defines the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency." - unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=3*

 

[JimG]

Well the Court will rule on the basis of the Constitution. At least I hope they will. Of course, there is nothing in the text or intent of anything in the Constitution that would lead one to believe that any of its authors or the authors of any of the amendments intended to make same sex marriage a constitutional right. That is obviously something entirely new. If they think it’s in there, they will have to twist the words to make it appear just as a right to abortion was made to appear, out of whole cloth.

 

[kozlosap]

Well the Court will rule on the basis of the Constitution. At least I hope they will. Of course, there is nothing in the text or intent of anything in the Constitution that would lead one to believe that any of its authors or the authors of any of the amendments intended to make same sex marriage a constitutional right. That is obviously something entirely new. If they think it’s in there, they will have to twist the words to make it appear just as a right to abortion was made to appear, out of whole cloth.

In all likelihood, the underlying constitutional basis for the Court agreeing with the majority of Regional circuit courts will be the Equal Protection Clause. Thank goodness we don’t live in a theocracy.

 

[JimG]

In all likelihood, the underlying constitutional basis for the Court agreeing with the majority of Regional circuit courts will be the Equal Protection Clause. Thank goodness we don’t live in a theocracy.

That’s true. We don’t live in a theocracy. We are coming rather to live in a Judiciocracy, wherein the Court can do whatever it pleases, taking upon itself all governmental power.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You don’t get into those societal positions unless you adopt their values.

As in this case:

lifenews.com/2015/01/28/catholic-ohio-congressman-tim-ryan-flip-flops-from-pro-life-to-pro-abortion/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Whichever way they vote, they are obliged by their oath to uphold the Rule of Law.

Being obliged to uphold the rule of law does not mean that they will uphold the rule of law.

Obama’s Justice Department seems to regularly flaunt the rule of law.

All bets are off that a dominantly Catholic Supreme Court will rule according to the rule of law in this case. There is no rule of law embedded in the Constitution that sodomites have a right to anything. Both Jefferson and Washington made that abundantly clear in their actions taken against sodomites both in the army of the Revolution and in the State of Virginia.

But then, of course, the Constitution is evolving along with Obama, isn’t it?

 

[marymary1975]

Kennedy claimed in that decision that marriage was a State’s Rights issues and the federal government had no right to make a decision about marriage. So, technically, he should vote that this is entirely up to the states.

Of course, I expect him (as the DOMA dissent implied) that he’ll basically make his previous statement a lie and ignore the state’s right to decide. Something like , “It’s the state’s right to decide what marriage is so long as they do exactly what we tell them to do.”

I absolutely agree with everything said here ^^^ Kennedy did claim that marriage was a state right. However knowing him (and that he is a flip flopper) I expect him to come out yes is their tight but…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s true. We don’t live in a theocracy. We are coming rather to live in a Judiciocracy, wherein the Court can do whatever it pleases, taking upon itself all governmental power.

Indeed, they fancy themselves Plato’s philosopher/kings.

 

[inocente]

Being obliged to uphold the rule of law does not mean that they will uphold the rule of law.

Obama’s Justice Department seems to regularly flaunt the rule of law.

All bets are off that a dominantly Catholic Supreme Court will rule according to the rule of law in this case. There is no rule of law embedded in the Constitution that sodomites have a right to anything. Both Jefferson and Washington made that abundantly clear in their actions taken against sodomites both in the army of the Revolution and in the State of Virginia.

But then, of course, the Constitution is evolving along with Obama, isn’t it?

I think we should be grateful by grace of God we’re not in Syria or Somalia, but living in free democracies where there is due process.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think we should be grateful by grace of God we’re not in Syria or Somalia, but living in free democracies where there is due process.

realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/29/sharyl_attkisson_if_you_cross_obama_admin_they_will_treat_you_like_enemies_of_the_state.html

Due process if you’re brave enough to challenge the top dog.