Norwegian bishop says priests will no longer officiate at civil marriages [CWN]

[Divine3]

In effect, where we once had three co-equal branches of government, Marbury v Madison gave us a government with one supreme branch and two subordinate branches. That’s not what the Founders intended. The Court can override the Executive and the Legislative branches by declaring their acts to be unconstitutional, but there is now no check on the Judicial branch.

Justice Scalia speaks about this…Tribute: Justice Scalia and Marbury v. Madison
scotusblog.com/2016/03/tribute-justice-scalia-and-marbury-v-madison/

 

[pnewton]

The Church is not offering a public accommodation with its weddings, so that’s not really relevant.

Definitions change, this one in particular.

You really think Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer would uphold a suit requiring the Church to conduct a religious ceremony marrying a same sex couple?

Yes, particularly Sotomayor.

 

[Divine3]

erlc.com/article/justice-scalias-two-most-essential-speeches

Here is another link that I’m going to read now…looks excellent!

“A crash course in Marbury v. Madison — One of the most helpful sections in these speeches is Scalia’s explanation of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that gave us judicial review:” from above link

 

[otjm]

Maybe we should do this here in America…just a suggestion

I am not aware of any priests officiating at civil (as opposed to Church) weddings. Are you?

 

[otjm]

In effect, where we once had three co-equal branches of government, Marbury v Madison gave us a government with one supreme branch and two subordinate branches. That’s not what the Founders intended. The Court can override the Executive and the Legislative branches by declaring their acts to be unconstitutional, but there is now no check on the Judicial branch.

There is an effective check on the judicial branch if the bench can be equally weighted. The danger is when either the liberals or the conservatives end up picking a majority of the judges.

And therein lies the difficulty; not every judge who has been chosen has subsequently decided cases as was presumed when they were appointed.

However, if I had to choose, I most certainly would not want a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress making the decisions in the next 4 years.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I am not aware of any priests officiating at civil (as opposed to Church) weddings. Are you?

All priests perform the duo function of performing civil and church weddings…at least in the United States.

 

[pnewton]

All priests perform the duo function of performing civil and church weddings…at least in the United States.

This is why the priest needs one to get a wedding certificate from the State before hand. He then fills it out and mails it in after the wedding.

It is likely the day will come when priests will no longer be able to act as agents of the State in performing marriages in the United States. Who knows what will happen then. It may be that a couple has to be married at by a civil authority, then go to the Church for the Sacramental ceremony.

 

[otjm]

All priests perform the duo function of performing civil and church weddings…at least in the United States.

That was not the question. The question was whether or not priests in the US perform civil weddings. to the best of my knowledge, they do not. Judges do, wedding chapels do.

Priests perform Catholic weddings which are recognized by the State as legitimate as far as the State is concerned; but the source of the wedding is a Catholic. They don’t perform Lutheran weddings, or Evangelical weddings, or purely civil weddings.

 

[JonNC]

No, I expect future judges will be more like Kagan, Sotomayor, or Breyer. Each of whom would easily uphold the right of any church to marry whomever they want in their own religious ceremonies within their walls.You are citing cases where the court found that certain restrictive laws did not conform to the Constitution, and so the restrictions were thrown out. I am talking about the Constitution itself.

As I recall, Breyer, in his decision making process, is willing to stray away from the constitution and consider the decisions of other judges in other countries.

I don’t share your certainty that progressive justices like the three you mentioned will protect any enumerated rights if doing so limits or restricts the progressive movement. Why, even a centrist justice like Roberts couldn’t bring himself to protect individual and religious liberty in the ACA case.

Jon