Norwegian bishop says priests will no longer officiate at civil marriages [CWN]
- Status
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Maybe we should do this here in America…just a suggestion
B
baliano
Guest
If the Church in America doesn’t follow suit it will be sued and with this Obama’s last year I’d expect the suit earlier than later.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that suit. Not sure what the law is in Norway, but I doubt they have as robust protection for religious practice as our First Amendment.
It may be one day soon that some states will no longer allow churches to act as agents of the state in officiating marriages if they will not perform same sex marriages. At that point, Catholic churches will probably follow the Norwegian approach on this matter. But in my opinion there is no reason to preemptively do this and inconvenience every Catholic couple intent on marrying, just to make a point. And there is certainly no reason to do this out of paranoia for an absurd lawsuit that is never going to happen.
C
commenter
Guest
The First Amendment is only as “robust” as the Supreme Court allows it to be. Do you think future Justices will be like Judge Scalia?
Do you think people in 1960 expected the Supreme Court to invalidate state laws against abortion? Do you think people just a few years ago expected it to do the same for SSM?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
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.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think so. Once one starts to run with the Devil it is hard to stop and get off. I see no difference in the Supreme Court saying what a religious organization can do with its real property and what it can do with its money. They courts are already forcing religious organization to provide birth control. The banner of “public accommodation” is bringing a wave of intolerance the likes of which has not been seen in decades.
D
Divine3
Guest
I agree with you Commenter – Since we have given the supreme court rights it should not have regarding same saying two people of the same sex are married, abortion and as it continues, It should have never gotten to the supreme court. Let the people vote on those issues, —we surly will end up in court before you know it regarding the falsity of saying there is any “marriage” between those of the same sex.
P
pnewton
Guest
It was not given. John Marshall assumed these rights in Marbury v. Madison, the beginning of the end for America (IMHO).
D
Divine3
Guest
Oh! I’ll have to read about that for a better understanding. Thanks!
D
Divine3
Guest
I just looked it up Marbury v Madison too complicated for me, what I chose to read. Maybe you might explain it to me in real simple terms — pnewton 
A
anon67074017
Guest
I am glad that the Church is going against the secular liberal Norwegian culture. Maybe the Russian Orthodox Church can also take a strong stand against Norway.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
Judicial Review isn’t the problem. The problem is that our whole Constitutional and republican system was devised for a society which, if not explicitly Christian, still by and large accepted the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. That morality no longer governs.
P
pnewton
Guest
Judicial review is the rights of the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, to overturn any action by any official, or any body of officials, any election, anything, if they deem it violates the Constitution (and now the “Spirit” of the Constitution). This right is not in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court ruled that it can be inferred from the Constitution and assumed this authority.I just looked it up Marbury v Madison too complicated for me, what I chose to read. Maybe you might explain it to me in real simple terms — pnewton
In my own opinion, it is the most serious failure of the Constitution and will ultimately result in the demise of the United States, unless it is either amended or re-written at some point in the future.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
There has to be an ultimate independent arbiter of what violates the Constitution and what doesn’t. That can’t be decided by elected officials or popular vote. We would have 1000 different interpretations of how a particular clause was to be interpeted.
P
pnewton
Guest
That arbiter does not have to be unelected and appointed for life. Power corrupts. It always needs a check.
A
abucs
Guest
I think as we travel into the future we are going to realise that the aggressive secular push of the last 50 years has created two sets of people. At some stage those divisions are going to sharpen and deepen.
J
JimG
Guest
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.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Congress can impeach the justices, and the president (with the consent of the Senate) can pack the court with enough justices to override the voting bloc that was problematic. What check on the court’s power are you lamenting the loss of?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
The Church is not offering a public accommodation with its weddings, so that’s not really relevant.
You really think Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer would uphold a suit requiring the Church to conduct a religious ceremony marrying a same sex couple? If you’re going to that extreme length, will you join baliano in suggesting action along these lines within the next 9 months?
- Status