Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker I told you pages ago you wouldn’t be hurt here. No-one leaves here needing a blood transfusion, rubber bullets that bounce off. Difference being in the real world this may not be so. Its just something to think about and for all of us. We are all sinners.
 
These topics are hot because they are instances where society deems evil to be good and good to be evil. I’m aghast at this because I know that sinful behavior even if the individual does not acknowledge the behavior as sinful damages human beings. That is why it is sinful, the behavior gets between the offender and God.

I want everyone to go to heaven, but worry how can they be saved when the acts they do are condemned by God?

Belief in the rightness of those sinful acts necessarily turn them away from the Church (who correctly condemn those acts), the Church that is their normative means of salvation

.
This is oh so true! And secular society has done an incredible job of doing this. If you’ve ever heard Fr. Wade Menezes or Fr. Ben Cameron of The Fathers of Mercy speak about this it’s absolutely bone chilling. It leaves you thinking it’s a hopeless situation, a losing battle. I’ve heard them speak of Catholics who have bought into this secular progressive view of society hook, line and sinker. (Heck, I work with them!) And you can here in their sermons of just how huge a concern it is for the Church. I’ve heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa speak about this as well. Geesh, Mother Angelica has gone on about this for as long as I can remember. And she’s been off the air for how long? You can’t help get the feeling that we’re in dire straits. But I remind myself what I’ve been taught, that Christ is always in control and He will prevail! That"s part of the beauty here on CAF. That the Church is alive and well. Reading the responses to this and other topics on here daily reveal this clearly. I for one learn a lot here. And I thank you! I think you know who you are! 🙂

Peace, Mark
 
In Minnesota last year people rejected a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Now there is a push to get same sex marriage legalized in this state. According to our local paper (startribune.com), the majority of Minnesotans, me included, do not support legalziing gay marriage. There will be a rally today at the State Capitol for gay marriage opponents.
 
In Minnesota last year people rejected a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Now there is a push to get same sex marriage legalized in this state. According to our local paper (startribune.com), the majority of Minnesotans, me included, do not support legalziing gay marriage. There will be a rally today at the State Capitol for gay marriage opponents.
I wish you all the best and you’re in my prayers! You see what state I reside in…enough said! :o

Peace, Mark
 
These topics are hot because they are instances where society deems evil to be good and good to be evil. I’m aghast at this because I know that sinful behavior even if the individual does not acknowledge the behavior as sinful damages human beings. That is why it is sinful, the behavior gets between the offender and God.

I want everyone to go to heaven, but worry how can they be saved when the acts they do are condemned by God?

Belief in the rightness of those sinful acts necessarily turn them away from the Church (who correctly condemn those acts), the Church that is their normative means of salvation.

Separated from the normative means of salvation I fear and am distressed for their salvation, greatly. SO I come here to express this concern. If I do so outside this forum where consciences are so malformed I fear I will do more harm than good, more heat than light. So basically it is CAF and one on one conversations where I can most clearly communicate a sense of charity in my arguments as I try to get people to access the normative means of salvation, i.e. the sacrament of confession.

Your observation is a good one and I felt it deserved a serious answer.
I appreciate your distress for my salvation. But please forgive me if I leave it to God and leave it to Him to understand me and all that encompasses me, including my mind, my acts, and behavior. And most importantly to know my heart.
 
I appreciate your distress for my salvation. But please forgive me if I leave it to God and leave it to Him to understand me and all that encompasses me, including my mind, my acts, and behavior. And most importantly to know my heart.
God reaches out to you through people. he knows your heart, he may forgive you, but he gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins, not everyone. God thought it important enough to bestow this ability on the apostles.

Is your contrition perfect?

You are telling God how to forgive you instead of listening to what He said. If you won’t listen to God to go get your sins forgiven, why should he listen to you when you demand he personally examine you and forgive you rather than use the means he set for this purpose?

Get to confession. This means everyone!
 
God reaches out to you through people. he knows your heart, he may forgive you, but he gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins, not everyone. God thought it important enough to bestow this ability on the apostles.

Is your contrition perfect?

You are telling God how to forgive you instead of listening to what He said. If you won’t listen to God to go get your sins forgiven, why should he listen to you when you demand he personally examine you and forgive you rather than use the means he set for this purpose?

Get to confession. This means everyone!
Of course a merciful God can forgive. He sacrificed His body and blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And we ask Him to forgive our trespasses each time we pray His prayer. The Apostle James also said to confess to one another. So no I am not telling God how.
 
Of course a merciful God can forgive. He sacrificed His body and blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And we ask Him to forgive our trespasses each time we pray His prayer. The Apostle James also said to confess to one another. So no I am not telling God how.
He will certainly forgive all those who forgive. He will also extend a red carpet welcome to some and who knows, Obama could be one of those privileged souls.
 
He will certainly forgive all those who forgive.
Forgiveness of others is one, only one, condition for God’s embrace and “the red carpet.” Other conditions include keepingi the moral law, respecting Christ’s Church on earth as the extension of Christ Himself, personal (not governmental, necessarily) commitment to those in greater material need than ourselves, living our personal vocations, and showing gratitude to God by the manner in which we maximize whatever gifts & positive conditions exist in our lives, and how we glorify God by respecting His creation and adding to it instead of detracting from it. (The Stewardship of the Book of Genesis)
He will also extend a red carpet welcome to some and who knows,
Yes, who does know? Not you, not I, not other CAF users who choose only certain portions of the Gospels and Epistles as litmus tests for who “loves” and does not “love.”
Obama could be one of those privileged souls.
So could serial killers be some of those privileged souls. What’s your point? (If it’s your fondness for Obama, we already know about that. ;))
 
One would think that recognition that one has sinned would be the first step in penance. I’m not sure if “I’m okay, you’re okay” counts.
 
He answers your question in the first paragraph. DOMA did not become unconstitutional until the first state passed a law allowing gay marriage. Then an equal protection issue was raised.
DOJ is not even challenging DOMA under Romer v Evans

Legal scholar William Duncan at Scotusblog, hardly a conservative source, does not think same sex couples have a right to ‘marry’ because of the claim of equal protection

scotusblog.com/2012/12/commentary-on-marriage-grants-opportunity-for-the-court-to-right-some-wrongs

Obama admin is arguing against DOMA based on heightened scrutiny

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/12/power-gained-argument-weakened-for-same-sex-marriage

My emphases
And so the modern courts have muddled through by developing three different “levels of scrutiny” for equal protection analysis, from most to least stringent: strict scrutiny, intermediate (or “heightened” scrutiny), and rational basis review. The first is the hardest test for a legislature to pass, and is applied to groups identified as a “suspect class.” Race is the paradigmatic category here, and the courts have added “alienage” (foreign citizenship) and national origin to this level of scrutiny as well. To defend a law employing such distinctions, a state must bear the burden of showing a “compelling interest,” and employ means “narrowly tailored” to achieving that interest. It is, and should be, hard to defend a law that favors and disfavors persons based on race or ethnicity.
At the next level of heightened scrutiny, we find “quasi-suspect classes” like “gender” and “illegitimacy.” Here the discriminating policies must be defended as “substantially” related to an “important interest” of the state. This is still an exceedingly muddy area of equal protection law, and it is hard to say how much of the probative burden is carried by the state, and how much by the party that complains of its policy. But in recent years—as when Virginia Military Institute was forced to give up all-male education in 1995—this intermediate scrutiny has been tantamount to the most stringent test.
All other state policies are subject to rational basis review, where the burden is largely on the challenging party, and all the state need show is that its policy of favoring some over others has some rational relationship to a merely “legitimate” governmental interest.
In recent same-sex marriage cases, those who seek to overturn traditional marriage laws have tried to persuade courts to treat homosexuals as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, thus leveraging the legal analysis into one of the harder levels of scrutiny, or at least an “intensified” rational basis review, and improving their chances of victory. Two recent decisions by federal district court judges in the Ninth Circuit—one in Hawaii by Judge Alan Kay on August 8, the other in Nevada by Judge Robert Jones on November 26—have rejected this gambit, rightly holding that laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman need only be shown to have an ordinary rational basis, that this is easily shown, and that they involve no invidious discrimination.
These decisions have blocked three roads to the enjoyment of a heightened judicial solicitude. (Both cases are being appealed, and neither is ripe for Supreme Court review in the present term. But the judges’ opinions are worthy of examination by the justices in the cases they are now pondering.) The first approach claimed that a law telling people they cannot marry another of the same sex is a form of “gender discrimination” meriting intermediate scrutiny. No, said the judges in these cases: Men and women are treated equally by such laws, and the discrimination turns not on gender but (at most) on sexual orientation.
The second approach was to claim that homosexuality is an immutable and defining characteristic, such that gays and lesbians have a history of being discriminated against, sufficient to raise their stature as a suspect class in the eyes of judges. Again, not so, said the judges in Hawaii and Nevada. Under governing Ninth Circuit precedent, never yet contradicted by the Supreme Court, homosexuality has been regarded as a behavioral characteristic, not an immutable one like race. And whatever discrimination gays and lesbians have suffered diminishes day by day, obviating the need for special judicial attention to their claims.
And this overlaps with the third and final approach, in which same-sex marriage advocates claim that gays and lesbians are politically powerless, unable to make headway in the normal channels of democratic decision-making at the polls and in legislatures, thus needing the aid of the judiciary. As Judge Jones noted in the Nevada case, this claim is refuted by recent history. The president of the United States opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and favors same-sex marriage. Legislatures in some states have established same-sex marriage, and in other states, civil unions. Moreover, Jones noted, the people of four states went to the polls in November to decide this question—and we know what the result was.
 
DOJ is not even challenging DOMA under Romer v Evans

Legal scholar William Duncan at Scotusblog, hardly a conservative source, does not think same sex couples have a right to ‘marry’ because of the claim of equal protection

scotusblog.com/2012/12/commentary-on-marriage-grants-opportunity-for-the-court-to-right-some-wrongs

Obama admin is arguing against DOMA based on heightened scrutiny

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/12/power-gained-argument-weakened-for-same-sex-marriage

My emphases
It’s all above my pay grade, but the equal protection argument is not about the right to marry. It’s about the right to equal protection once legally married. That is why DOMA is unconstitutional, once a state legally marries a gay couple. If two legally married couples in a state have different rights under a Federal law, then there is an equal protection argument to be made. Hard to believe that your legal scholar would miss something so obvious.

Simply explaining this seems to then lead to people painting me as being in favor of gay marriage. For the record, I am not. But I think that the momentum of the women’s rights movement has lead us logically and inexorably to this point in history. My take on it is that there is no stopping it legally.
 
The Quinnipiac University survey out Friday shows that 54 percent of Catholics agree with their President and support same-sex marriage being legal in civil law . With only 38% opposing. These new results reflect a steady uptick in support for gay marriage over the years, a big reversal from just 5 yrs ago when Quinnipiac found a sizeable majority of Americans opposed gay marriage.

And Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac’s polling institute.

nydailynews.com/news/politics/54-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1283238
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top