Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[Seeker1961]

If you believe in the Christian God, why are you putting Caesar above him? A Christian would want laws influenced by the gospel. How can you say that you are not standing against the very God you claim to worship? What would Jesus say about this stance?

And why are you putting yourself above God and judging me? It seems you have already decided my fate.

I’m glad you raised the issue of laws based on the Gospel. I’m assuming here that you are American, I confess I didn’t read your location before I wrote this. Reading American history will tell you that Catholics have benefited handsomely from the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment. The idea of religious freedom is what gave us our Catholic school system and made sure that we can have an equal footing for jobs. The heavily Protestant majority was not permitted to discriminate against our right to practice our faith, educate our children or make a decent living. All because a majority faith couldn’t make their interpretation the law of the land.

There are areas in my old home state of NJ that are predominately Muslim. Would it be ok for those areas to set up laws according to the Koran? Certainly those folks would be putting God above “Caesar”, something you admire. How would you feel if you lived in that area for your entire life and suddenly as the minority you were forced to live under religious rules you don’t believe?

Yes, it would be so much easier if everyone thought the way I do and made the same choices I made. That’s how we all feel, because we all feel our choices are the only right ones. Freedom is hard, because if we want our freedom and rights respected sometimes we have to respect the rights of people who are different from us and don’t share our values.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I am not American, but you seem to have a strange definition of freedom, that is not the same when the Church talks about it. If I am a hypocrite please remove the speck from my eye–as I see it modern people have a confused understanding of tolerance and liberty and put politics above even God.

Insofar as the Koran is compatible with the gospel I would not mind. The laws of God are more important to me than being well liked by others. Separation of church and state does not include separation of Christianity and culture. Otherwise Christians should never vote, since religion influences every philosophy in ones life, including a society’s view of justice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It seems you have already decided my fate. .

God judges that and by the moment.

I’m glad you raised the issue of laws based on the Gospel. I’m assuming here that you are American, I confess I didn’t read your location before I wrote this. Reading American history will tell you that Catholics have benefited handsomely from the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment. The idea of religious freedom is what gave us our Catholic school system and made sure that we can have an equal footing for jobs. …

Catholics benefitted? Who benefitted the most in this country? How many Catholics signed the D of I? Telling story I would say. Good thing it was rooted in Robert Bellarmines work. Which WE THE PEOPLE need to get back to. LIFE! first, Remember He came so we may have LIFE! SS marriage equals NO-LIFE! This is a circumvention of life, which our President seems to embrace whenever he can. What will he do next?

Everyone here has benefited from the Bible based government, no secret there. So why should we change what we KNOW works, for the latest ideal which we don’t even know medically or psychologically what we are dealing with “for sure”. But from a natural behavioral orientation view. That’s it!

The heavily Protestant majority was not permitted to discriminate against our right to practice our faith, educate our children or make a decent living. All because a majority faith couldn’t make their interpretation the law of the land…

Wrong they intentionally chose not to interfere.

And they made an interpretation. Thomas Jefferson, Danbury CT and the Baptist Church. No interference by the State in the Church, that’s what separation of Church and State correctly means. Which has nothing to do with this thread. The Biblical basis of our law and morality the STATE and CHURCH not one or the other to separate so we can chose whichever evil we deem fit.

There are areas in my old home state of NJ that are predominately Muslim. Would it be ok for those areas to set up laws according to the Koran? Certainly those folks would be putting God above “Caesar”, something you admire. How would you feel if you lived in that area for your entire life and suddenly as the minority you were forced to live under religious rules you don’t believe?.

That’s in court now. Sharia Law in not in-line with the Constitution. As to your last sentence, Thy Will be Done. “Such is the faithful endurance that distinguishes Gods Holy People”…Revelation! I pray only for the strength.

Yes, it would be so much easier if everyone thought the way I do and made the same choices I made. That’s how we all feel, because we all feel our choices are the only right ones. Freedom is hard, because if we want our freedom and rights respected sometimes we have to respect the rights of people who are different from us and don’t share our values.

What choice’s? Why would anything be easier if everyone thought like you?

Personal views? I’ve spent countless hours of my time “helping” souls with this issue. And it is a Behavior Issue. Anything to support any other theory I have not witnessed, source? Nothing but cold speculation with an outside shot of a possibility. I call white-white and black-black. I have little concern for a so called grey area, its doesn’t make people well. It continues to make rationalized theories for behavior issues. And somehow we now should call normal behavior, if that’s normal so was Newtown. Don’t know what else to do with the issue? By all means lets legalize it so our Presidents popularity embraces another area no-one has the knowledge to suggest should be legal, certainly not our lawyer President. Thats a failure of plan if I ever heard one, What other breach should we call normal and legalize for the sake of popularity?

Apparently by your own admission you see this problem, why then would you promote it? Certainly you see your own error? We all make them brother, we don’t legalize them, rationalize them. Honesty is the first step, self honesty.

And freedom didn’t role in on the wheels of inevitability, hard fought every step of the way, and that is whenever someone has a vision which is contrary to the fundamental basis of this country. Sorry if some of us are a little skeptical about the newfound ideal in the land of the Free. They have every right to be skeptical, every right, and they need not feel silenced by what they helped defend, create, and preserve in this country either.

I like to embrace the optimistic side of life, but I am realistic enough to know when we have an issue. And we have an issue. And that is denial correctly applied, not incorrectly as suggested by SS. That is LOVE! Truth is truth and that’s not un-caring, un-charitable, un-humane, un-loving, it is truly caring by seeing things as they are, not as we would like, think or wish. We call it reality.

And this is “really” an issue except on lollipop lane where it never rains, and with those who embrace this misguided Presidents view’s, who is an abomination in history. Whats a damn shame is he should be mentioned in the same breath with others such as Dr.King and Parks. That I find disturbing.

And I don’t see where any case has been made for this outrage, where? There is nothing to lean on but an illusion of equal rights. Grasping at straws. They are doing it over there in other countries, means what? Buddists are practicing self immolation, should we legalize that? How about dope like Amsterdam?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not American, but you seem to have a strange definition of freedom, that is not the same when the Church talks about it.

Nothing wrong with your minds eye. It sees well.

 

[Seeker1961]

God judges that and by the moment.

Catholics benefitted? Who benefitted the most in this country? How many Catholics signed the D of I? Telling story I would say. Good thing it was rooted in Robert Bellarmines work. Which WE THE PEOPLE need to get back to. LIFE! first, Remember He came so we may have LIFE! SS marriage equals NO-LIFE! This is a circumvention of life, which our President seems to embrace whenever he can. What will he do next?

Everyone here has benefited from the Bible based government, no secret there. So why should we change what we KNOW works, for the latest ideal which we don’t even know medically or psychologically what we are dealing with “for sure”. But from a natural behavioral orientation view. That’s it!

Wrong they intentionally chose not to interfere.

And they made an interpretation. Thomas Jefferson, Danbury CT and the Baptist Church. No interference by the State in the Church, that’s what separation of Church and State correctly means. Which has nothing to do with this thread. The Biblical basis of our law and morality the STATE and CHURCH not one or the other to separate so we can chose whichever evil we deem fit.

That’s in court now. Sharia Law in not in-line with the Constitution. As to your last sentence, Thy Will be Done. “Such is the faithful endurance that distinguishes Gods Holy People”…Revelation! I pray only for the strength.

What choice’s? Why would anything be easier if everyone thought like you?

Personal views? I’ve spent countless hours of my time “helping” souls with this issue. And it is a Behavior Issue. Anything to support any other theory I have not witnessed, source? Nothing but cold speculation with an outside shot of a possibility. I call white-white and black-black. I have little concern for a so called grey area, its doesn’t make people well. It continues to make rationalized theories for behavior issues. And somehow we now should call normal behavior, if that’s normal so was Newtown. Don’t know what else to do with the issue? By all means lets legalize it so our Presidents popularity embraces another area no-one has the knowledge to suggest should be legal, certainly not our lawyer President. Thats a failure of plan if I ever heard one, What other breach should we call normal and legalize for the sake of popularity?

Apparently by your own admission you see this problem, why then would you promote it? Certainly you see your own error? We all make them brother, we don’t legalize them, rationalize them. Honesty is the first step, self honesty.

And freedom didn’t role in on the wheels of inevitability, hard fought every step of the way, and that is whenever someone has a vision which is contrary to the fundamental basis of this country. Sorry if some of us are a little skeptical about the newfound ideal in the land of the Free. They have every right to be skeptical, every right, and they need not feel silenced by what they helped defend, create, and preserve in this country either.

I like to embrace the optimistic side of life, but I am realistic enough to know when we have an issue. And we have an issue. And that is denial correctly applied, not incorrectly as suggested by SS. That is LOVE! Truth is truth and that’s not un-caring, un-charitable, un-humane, un-loving, it is truly caring by seeing things as they are, not as we would like, think or wish. We call it reality.

And this is “really” an issue except on lollipop lane where it never rains, and with those who embrace this misguided Presidents view’s, who is an abomination in history. Whats a damn shame is he should be mentioned in the same breath with others such as Dr.King and Parks. That I find disturbing.

And I don’t see where any case has been made for this outrage, where? There is nothing to lean on but an illusion of equal rights. Grasping at straws. They are doing it over there in other countries, means what? Buddists are practicing self immolation, should we legalize that? How about dope like Amsterdam?

We certainly are not going to change each other’s opinion here and rather than continue to upset you with mine, I’ll wish you a good day.

No matter what the final decision on gay marriage is, I am of the opinion that you will continue to believe that it is wrong and that you will never be forced to marry a gay person.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am of the opinion that you will continue to believe that it is wrong

Would I be wrong to suggest you will also feel and think the same? Seriously? I have no contempt for these souls, only responsible love and concern. Far by me to read your mind.

 

[fix]

We certainly are not going to change each other’s opinion here and rather than continue to upset you with mine, I’ll wish you a good day.

No matter what the final decision on gay marriage is, I am of the opinion that you will continue to believe that it is wrong and that you will never be forced to marry a gay person.

Children will be harmed. Society will be transformed into more tyranny.

 

[Seeker1961]

Would I be wrong to suggest you will also feel and think the same? Seriously? I have no contempt for these souls, only responsible love and concern. Far by me to read your mind.

First, I thought I had made my choice clear in my earlier post. If I thought being married was right for me in regard to my relationship with God, I would still be with my partner and we probably would have been married in NY when it became legal. However, I made a commitment to God and have chosen to live by that commitment.

Despite that…IN MY OPINION, it is not the state’s job to force people to live by the requirements of my Catholic faith by rule of law. Clearly, you feel differently and I respect your choice.

 

[Monkey1976]

To me it’s immaterial. One could point to examples of slavery. But fortunately and I thank God civilization evolved on that issue. And just as we can point to a time in history with regard to slavery and civil rights, since SS civil marriage is being adopted at this point in places, perhaps a future generation will point to this time in history in the 21st century as the rallying point for when civilization recognized granting and furthering civil rights to another group of persons as well.

But slavery wasn’t part of every civilization throughout history, nor was it always defined in the same way. By the standards of some civilizations, most contractors today would have been considered “slaves” - they sell their labor for a fixed term under an exclusive contract. Sorry - slavery isn’t relevant to this discussion.

Several civilizations actively promoted homosexual behavior, yet - as far as I am aware - they still reserved marriage as something that could only happen between male and female. I’m giving a window of over 10,000 years - just show me one example of same-sex “marriage” that was legally equal to marriage.

If, on the other hand, same-sex “marriage” advocates cannot do so, then there needs to be overwhelming and compelling evidence that it is a good thing that was somehow missed by every single society throughout history. So far, all we’ve gotten are false equivalency and arguments that boil down to “I want it”. That isn’t evidence - that’s a child having a tantrum.

A major change to the basic unit of civilization is being proposed. This needs to be judged using reason, logic, and the merits of the proposed change - not on sentiment and emotion. If same-sex marriage is such a good and wonderful thing, then it should be able to be demonstrated as such using reason and logic without having to appeal to emotion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, I thought I had made my choice clear in my earlier post. If I thought being married was right for me in regard to my relationship with God, I would still be with my partner and we probably would have been married in NY when it became legal. However, I made a commitment to God and have chosen to live by that commitment.

Despite that…IN MY OPINION, it is not the state’s job to force people to live by the requirements of my Catholic faith by rule of law. Clearly, you feel differently and I respect your choice.

Is the Church wrong in this area or right in your opinion?

Seeker your dealing with your own Cross and by Gods Grace in His Church, its a Blessing. I understand this isn’t easy. All of us have a Cross to bear, there is no shame in that. If you believe so strongly in what your doing, why would you suggest another follow another path? Don’t you see that is contrition. You didn’t come to this because you thought you were living correctly. I don’t think your seeing yourself clearly in this nor given credit to yourself where it due. Your drifting in thought to a lifestyle you gave up? Imho its simply an issue you need to continue to work with moment by moment. The Church no doubt will help.

I would suggest because of your personal situation your conflicting Catholicism with the USA. which isn’t Catholicism, the Church calls it the Culture of Death. Because of the relevance we have raised up the pole here of recent years. Nevertheless, the country is predominately Christian. Are you suggesting this moral ethical view ought to be trashed in favor of what? Especially when even though we have had difficult moments, it has served us well for 250 years. A very short time in history, and with that in mind I am skeptical about deviating from a proven path.

If we are to dismiss this teaching, shouldn’t we at least be positive in what we are in fact doing through factual documentation? Its doesn’t exist.

 

[Seeker1961]

Is the Church wrong in this area or right in your opinion?

Seeker your dealing with your own Cross and by Gods Grace in His Church, its a Blessing. I understand this isn’t easy. All of us have a Cross to bear, there is no shame in that. If you believe so strongly in what your doing, why would you suggest another follow another path? Don’t you see that is contrition. You didn’t come to this because you thought you were living correctly. I don’t think your seeing yourself clearly in this nor given credit to yourself where it due. Your drifting in thought to a lifestyle you gave up? Imho its simply an issue you need to continue to work with moment by moment. The Church no doubt will help.

I would suggest because of your personal situation your conflicting Catholicism with the USA. which isn’t Catholicism, the Church calls it the Culture of Death. Because of the relevance we have raised up the pole here of recent years. Nevertheless, the country is predominately Christian. Are you suggesting this moral ethical view ought to be trashed in favor of what? Especially when even though we have had difficult moments, it has served us well for 250 years. A very short time in history, and with that in mind I am skeptical about deviating from a proven path.

If we are to dismiss this teaching, shouldn’t we at least be positive in what we are in fact doing through factual documentation? Its doesn’t exist.

Who am I to choose for others?? Who am I to say to you or anyone else that my choice is the way everyone should live?? Nobody forced me to make my choice, I made it myself-which to me makes it more likely I can continue to live by it. If I made that choice to please some earthly authority, it would never have lasted this long.

As for the country being “predominately Christian”, well, which Christian? Which denominations rules are going to be made law? Don’t be so sure that it’s going to be your view, my friend. Catholics weren’t even considered Christian by most of the powers that be in American political Christianity-and I would bet most of them still don’t consider us Christians. They need our numbers for the ballot box, but that isn’t going to last forever. I was working in politics during the 1980’s and the rise of the Christian Right-I know EXACTLY what was going on and what was being said in the strategy meetings. I worked for the GOP in college and in graduate school and trust me, it was quite an education.

I am not conflicting Catholicism with America at all. I know quite well that the two are very separate and unique institutions.

 

[fix]

I agree such comments by people on the anti SS marriage side don’t help their cause. And amen to any one particular faith’s beliefs not being binding on all of a country’s citizens. I have no interest in living in such a place on earth either. This is a nation of many plural beliefs as well as non belief. One of the great things about America is our diversity and that we live in a place on earth where our diversity can be celebrated while we still live together in one nation.

Making SS marriage legal under civil law does not mean Catholics or others have to accept it as part of their beliefs, nor that they have to celebrate SS union ceremonies. If a gay couple were to approach a Catholic priest to marry them, he would not. No different than now. OTOH if a UCC pastor wants to do so, he or she could perform such ceremonies.

All that would need to be acknowledged is it would be legal under civil law. You wouldn’t have to agree with it There are laws I do not agree with.

Being legal is unjust. Children would be greatly affected. The schools already indoctrinate this agenda. It will transform all of society and have far reaching affects. Bad affects. While you and others defend these unjust laws I never hear about the rest of the society and why children have their rights denied. It is a one way street with those who support this tyranny.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Is is a basic civil right - everyone, regardless of sex, race, creed, or any other protected classification, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Again, that is a limiter which is pure commentary. The Supreme Court never declared such a limitation which is why this case exists; to evaluate the claim that the civil right of marriage can be Constitutionally limited to heterosexuals.

Being legal is unjust. Children would be greatly affected. The schools already indoctrinate this agenda. It will transform all of society and have far reaching affects. Bad affects. While you and others defend these unjust laws I never hear about the rest of the society and why children have their rights denied. It is a one way street with those who support this tyranny.

Statements like the above are standard when it comes to this issue and many other civil rights issues. The reality, of course, in places where gay marriage has been legalized is that life goes on after the dust settles. People go to work, they pay their bills, they marry, raise children, and sometimes divorce; all according to their own wishes and beliefs. There’s never been a societal apocalypse resulting from the legalization of gay marriage and it is not the responsibility of the State to teach or impose Catholic, or any other religion’s, moral values to children and the whole of society. Teaching moral values to children is the role of a parent and it is the Church’s responsibility to evangelize; not the State. Tyranny? I don’t think so.

 

[fix]

Statements like the above are standard when it comes to this issue and many other civil rights issues. The reality, of course, in places where gay marriage has been legalized is that life goes on after the dust settles. People go to work, they pay their bills, they marry, raise children, and sometimes divorce according to their own wishes and beliefs. There’s never been a societal apocalypse resulting from the legalization of gay marriage and it is not the responsibility of the State to teach or impose Catholic, or any other religion’s, moral values to your children and on the whole of society. Teaching moral values to children is the role of a parent and it is the Church’s responsibility to evangelize; not the State.

Relativists only view harm as direct physical attack. Children are being harmed and so is society.

 

[InJesusItrust]

There is something very fishy with a Christian condoning evil for the sake of freedom. It only makes sense if at some level they don’t believe its evil. The whole point of a religious person being able to vote or be a politician is to have influence on laws. The only way to ensure “freedom” is to take away those rights from nonsecular people since religious people are heavily influenced by religion. The only way religious people will not vote in their own interest is if they are not really religious or don’t believe the “freedom” is evil. Isn’t the whole point of suffrage to allow people to vote on policies according to their beliefs?

Am I missing something here? This whole freedom for those who want to commit evil thing makes no sense to me.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thomas Peters:

"We expect the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage. The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, the issue here with Christians and in all areas including Catholicism is many are of different Biblical mindsets to specific teachings. I go with the Catholic Church on those since they have served the family and mankind well. I believe as individuals we ought to admit we don’t have all the answers, especially with all we do not know with this particular issue. And stick to the teaching of the Church who has served mankind well for a very long time. That’s opposed to our infant USA who begin life firmly rooted in Christianity.

 

[CarolNoel]

I find it pretty scary to read what is going on in Canada regarding our Church. The same thing could very well happen here.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

“Obama, a former constitutional law professor”

LOL! former constitutional law professor. haha funny joke

 

[Presurmksdimnds]

Well - there it goes.

Doesn’t matter if it is right or not.

Obama is Americas god now.

Obama has spoken, and so shall it be.