I’d rather deal with the Black Death than;Ah, but I think in the places you might prefer, you’d be battling the Black Death.
My church leaves specific conduct to the informed conscience of the individual. We believe that this is a matter that is between the individual and God. They do teach us how to discern right from wrong, and we learn that the greatest commandment is to love God above all things, and second, to love our neighbors. The sacrament of confession is made available to all. We believe that It is the duty of each person, under the teaching guidance of the Church, to inform themselves through prayer and study and arrive at an understanding of the Truth revealed to our world by Jesus Christ and to apply their individual gifts to the building of God’s Kingdom.Your church is okay with the encouragement and execution of lust?
So let me ask you something, and I promise you I don’t mean it offensive, so hopefully it doesn’t come off that way. What would you say differentiates you from a Protestant church?
They are entitled to their beliefs. Civil marriage isn’t just for the holy… it isn’t just for Christians. It is for those of all faiths, or none. It is not a religious institution, so I don’t see how it matters.
Many things… but the biggest is that we have maintained apostolic succession which can be traced back to Saint Peter.
The barrier exists, but so does civic responsibility. The rights of a church are respected, and the free exercise of their religion is one of our sacred values as a nation. But a hospital has a different set of rules… the set that is applied to all hospitals, a business has to follow the laws that apply to businesses… regardless of who owns them.
True, but many of those things also apply to the Lutheran Church, which is typically considered Protestant by Catholics (though Lutherans might not think of themselves that way).
While that is true, I don’t believe they maintain apostolic succession.
I have read the decision, and my accusation is based on the statements of Justices Roberts and Alito. Justice Roberts stated that in relation to the Legislative and Executive Branches passing DOMA, the decision served to “tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry”. Justice Alito’s dissent noted that “Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools”
Yes, after reading the decision, I would agree. There was no other consistent reason giving by the majority.
Absolutely. Alito’s dissent was bizarre and detached from reality. One of his major arguments was, essentially, that the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction because it shouldn’t weigh in on controversial issues. He forgets that the Supreme Court is obligated to decide cases involving rights regardless of the social implications. He also, essentially, argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have decided this case because it shouldn’t be steering society in one direction or another. He clearly missed the forest for the trees on that one. A 5-4 decision in favor of same-sex marriage is reflective of the national view. The bits about bigotry and superstitious fools is just hyperbolic nonsense. The State never presented a compelling reason to violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.
Worth reading:thumbsup:
Would you quote Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion that leads you to believe that is the case?
Thanks for posting, that was very interesting, religious freedom is in some serious danger if things keep going the way they areI had the pleasure of reading this article because I was unsure how SSM can destroy our culture.
catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/four-ways-that-same-sex-marriage-will-affect-you
Worth reading:thumbsup:
Yes, Alito is the mental lightweight in what is arguably the worst court in US history.
No way; the court was much more permissive during the Roe years. This court actually has the potentiality of rolling back abortion now that O’ Connor has been gone.
It was a states rights decision. The majority said it is the states that define and regulate marriage, except for when congress can, but not in this case. The reason not in this case is because congress took away something no one had at the time because they are bigots. See, clear as mud.
