It harms the institution of marriage as it redefines marriage. Your own Church, as you know is unequivocally opposed to gay ‘marriage’ and calls on all Catholics to oppose gay ‘marriage’. As a Catholic you are totally bound by the Church’s teachings on all issues of faith and morals, including the Church’s teaching on gay ‘marriage’.
This is a very tired old saw and I think YOU can do better. You might as well say that the guy molesting his children in the apartment next door doesn’t hurt my relationship with my children. Or it doesn’t matter that the woman next door is running a brothel because my sex life is just fine thank you and she doesn’t interfere.
Activism is what people do…they actively stand for and defend their beliefs. Nothing wrong with being an activist. In a sense, everyone here is an activist, and that’s a good thing. I’m grateful that we live where we can have these discussions without fear of reprisals.
But judges are not called to be activists. They are called to judge the constitutionality of legislation.
A judge, in my experience, is an “Activist” over the past 30 years when the right doesn’t like a decision rendered by a court. As far as what is Constitutional, that’s what state and Federal judiciaries rule on.
First, no one is “coming for the church.” Now if you are truly interested in knowing how society benefits from gay people marrying I’ll tell you. First, it creates a stable family unit, which in turn provides for increased economic and social stability. Second, it incentivizes the pooling of resources, this allows mutual support that enables the individuals in the relationship to do things like going to school thus making themselves a more productive member of society. It also enables the couples to create a legally recognized status that confers legal protections like custody and other legal devices. It creates a stable environment in which children can thrive. There are lots of other reasons, but my fingers are tired.
In many cases, to which I am assuming you refer, they would appear to have been basing their decisions on personal opinion, not legality or constitutionality.
Well said. My fingers are tired too. (I can hardly wait for someone to say “GOOD!”. LOL)
A judge has the right to render a ruling based on law, legal precedent and his or her take on on the issue at hand. In fact, this is their job. This applies to judges of any political persuasion. There are rulings I don’t like as well. Hence, the appeals process.
On this we agree. What I am saying is that it would appear that many have been basing decisions on political persuasion rather than laws or the Constitution.
I agree. I’m just viewing different cases as wrong judicial decisions than you are, if I read you correctly.
Then would the best course of action not be to keep your personal views on these issues to yourself and pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you back? Speaking out in public against the teaching of the Church is hardly what any Catholic ought to do.
Thank you for your comment. And now, back to our topic.
It does seem that some people are incapable of learning from the past. In his ruling, Judge Shelby discusses the arguments presented by the State of Utah and compares them with the arguments used in Loving v Virginia:
Except that anti-miscegenation laws only came into play 200 years ago, whereas marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
