Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeannyM said:
The problem is that you have no right to impose church laws on “all humanity.”
Click to expand...
God’s laws are God’s laws. God created humanity and all creation and with that created Natural law. Christ created His Church on Earth to spread the Word and gave that Church the authority, through the Pope. to bind and loose.
SeannyM said:
One of the greatest ideals of America is religious liberty and respect for other’s beliefs.
Click to expand...
The United States, it’s government, and it’s laws are nothing more than man-defined boundary lines on a map of God’s creation along with man-made, secular laws. God’s laws are for all humanity and recognise no national boundaries.
SeannyM said:
The RCC does not have the right or ability to try and define what God’s law is for people of different faiths. My church has a different interpretation of God’s law than yours does.
Click to expand...
Christ built His Church on Peter and gave him the power to bind and loose.
SeannyM said:
I would never want to impose my beliefs on you, or try to tell you that your church’s interpretation is wrong, because I respect your right to hold your own beliefs.
Click to expand...
I do actually respect your right to hold wrong beliefs.

When two beliefs are in opposition to each other they cannot both be right. I’ll trust the Magisterium of the Church that Christ set up on Earth and the authority of the Chair of Peter on issues of faith and morals. I’ll take that over personal interpretations, any day.
 
Monkey1976 said:
It harms no one, apart from those who are now faced with the choice of violating their conscience or closing their businesses/changing their careers.

Nobody was preventing two women or two men from calling themselves married. What’s happening is that we are now being forced to agree with that against conscience and reason.
Click to expand...
No you’re not! You are being required to obey the law where it applies, which is what we do in a civilized law based community. Agreeing with the law is not a prerequisite. And are you actually arguing that it is better to deny a fundamental liberty to millions of American than to anger a few people? These cases you are referring to have been few and far between. I’m sorry, but people not wanting to obey the law is not a reason to deny a fundamental liberty to an entire group of people.
 
SeannyM said:
And are you actually arguing that it is better to deny a fundamental liberty to millions of American than to anger a few people?
Click to expand...
A fundamental liberty? How has gay ‘marriage’ suddenly become a fundamental liberty?

You have all legal rights regarding inheritance, tax, etc. when living with a partner (and rightly so in my opinion). You have the right to cohabit. What rights are you being denied?

By demanding that your relationships be classified as ‘marriage’ you are not gaining any new rights that you don’t already have. What this is all about is calling for a legal recognition that homosexual sexual relations are equivalent and equal to heterosexual sexual relations. This is clearly not the case naturally as homosexual sexual relations are closed to creation. You are calling for something to be enshrined in Civil law that is contrary to Natural law. This is not about equal rights, this is about redefining the institution of marriage.
 
SeannyM said:
No you’re not! You are being required to obey the law where it applies, which is what we do in a civilized law based community. Agreeing with the law is not a prerequisite. And are you actually arguing that it is better to deny a fundamental liberty to millions of American than to anger a few people? These cases you are referring to have been few and far between. I’m sorry, but people not wanting to obey the law is not a reason to deny a fundamental liberty to an entire group of people.
Click to expand...
And here we see the dictatorship of the minority. Agree with us, or face legal penalties. So, in 1850s Missouri, I should have turned in any runaway slaves? After all, the keeping of slaves was a constitutionally-protected right at that time, was only practiced by a minority of people, and it was illegal to harbor runaways because doing so “injured” their “owner”.

You can claim same-sex “marriage” is a fundamental liberty when it is capable of exercising the fundamental liberty on which the claim of marriage as a right is based: Procreation.

Nobody is stopping you from calling another man your husband. You have that right under the free exercise clause. What is happening here is that we’re being forced to go along with that delusion or face civil and legal penalties.

Sorry, but there are FOUR lights.
 
SeannyM said:
Marriage is defined as a fundamental liberty by the courts. This is not a new thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, and marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. Homosexuals can get married, but not to members of the same gender.
 
SeannyM said:
huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-same-sex-marriage_n_4482703.html

This could be the case that finally ends the debate over whether gay people are entitled to the same right to marry as straight people. In my opinion, this is an example of the court functioning as it was intended. Even in a state so deeply under the finger of a religious organization as Utah, this judge had the intestinal fortitude to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. I pray to God that this case is appealed to SCOTUS and upheld, bringing an end to codified anti-gay discrimination.
Click to expand...
Same here. I forget who said this, but it’s the stone cold truth: *“Judges put their hands on the Bible and swear to support the Constitution, not put their hands on the Constitution and swear to support the Bible.” *
 
JamesTheJust said:
Yes, and marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. Homosexuals can get married, but not to members of the same gender.
Click to expand...
Actually, they can get married to someone of the same sex in my state, and several others… In fact over half of the country’s population lives in a state where that can happen. That is the same argument used by the commonwealth of Virginia during the Loving v Virginia case by the way. The right to marry a consenting adult of your choosing is the right I’m referring to, and it’s the right that the court was referring to in Loving and in the recent case. That right has previously not been applied to gay people, but that’s the point of the case, there is no logical reason to deny that right to gay people.
 
Monkey1976 said:
And yet you have no problem with this judge redefining marriage in a way that suits your particular religion.
Click to expand...
The judge is not redefining “marriage”. He is redefining “civil marriage in Utah”. Civil marriage in Spain is unaffected. Muslim marriage is unaffected. LDS marriage is unaffected. Large numbers of different types of marriage are unaffected. Only one type of marriage is affected.

How long has civil divorce been legal in the US? Has that change affected Catholic marriage?

There are different versions of marriage. This legal decision does not affect the Catholic definition of marriage at all.

rossum
 
_Abyssinia said:
Legalising homosexual marriage wasn’t legalised by the support of the majority of Utah residents, it was pushed into legalisation by a judge. What did Utah residents vote to do on the issue of marriage? The majority of people who voted on the issue of marriage voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage

Opposition to gay marriage is not discrimintion
Click to expand...
Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.
 
LisaA said:
And even Justice Ginsberg says Roe was poorly decided. Read it sometime and it’s pretzel logic creating rights out of a pneumbra of hot air emitting from the Justice’s mouth is dazzingly illogical.

Marriage may be a right but the parties who are eligible have been limited in different ways. It truly boggles the mind that in the last couple of decades activists and activist judges have simply decided that they know better than thousands of years of law, tradition, biology, sociology and history. Marriage has never been about state support of a sexual activity. And in the final analysis that is ALL that homosexuals want. It would make about as much sense to say that there could be marriages based on a proclivity to oral sex or mutual enjoyment of porn. When your entire case is based on protecting a non-creative sexual activity, it debases the intrinsic humanity we are all born with. People are more than genitalia and what is done with them but homosexuals are now self described and personally identified with this activity as a unique element of themselves.

It’s truly amazing and sad what has happened because a tiny minority of the population wants to inflict its practices on the country. As you noted, Roe has not only resulted in the death of millions of American citizens but has created a culture war with many more casualties. When we defy Natural Law the consequences are devastating. Species do not normally engage in self destructive behavior. Even if you don’t accept God’s Law you can’t fool Mother Nature.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Am I correct in thinking that in most of the states in which homosexual marriage has been legalised, it has been imposed by courts or by the legislature, not by people voting to not uphold marriage between one man and one woman and therefore legalise homosexual marriage, wheras in most of the states which have constitutional amdenments banning homosexual marriage, ban it because the majority of people who voted voted to uphold mrriage between one man and one woman?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Am I correct in thinking that in most of the states in which homosexual marriage has been legalised, it has been imposed by courts or by the legislature, not by people voting to not uphold marriage between one man and one woman and therefore legalise homosexual marriage, wheras in most of the states which have constitutional amdenments banning homosexual marriage, ban it because the majority of people who voted voted to uphold mrriage between one man and one woman?
Click to expand...
The same arguments were used against interracial marriage, and yes, the same principle applies in the case of gay marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is just fine and will endure. Gay people aren’t going to fill the streets carrying torches and burning down the homes of married heterosexuals, which is the impression I get from some who prefer to stew in their paranoia. Voters don’t have the right to determine the right to marry for gay people. It is a right. Period.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Am I correct in thinking that in most of the states in which homosexual marriage has been legalised, it has been imposed by courts or by the legislature, not by people voting to not uphold marriage between one man and one woman and therefore legalise homosexual marriage, wheras in most of the states which have constitutional amdenments banning homosexual marriage, ban it because the majority of people who voted voted to uphold mrriage between one man and one woman?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure… But I don’t see how that matters, since the people don’t have a right to vote on civil rights. If they do vote to restrict civil rights without a legitimate state interest, it is the duty of the courts to step in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top