Pray for California

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kozlosap said:
When we are speaking of civil law concerns and the Constitution, yes. Equal
Protection is an important concept. Now, the government cannot mandate any
Church to marry couples just as it can’t mandate the RCC to annul marriages.
Do you not want to live in a country where there is a strong judiciary that is in
Place for the sole purpose to protect our rights under the constitution? I don’t want
Civilians to tell the Vatican what to do either.
Click to expand...
Actually I would prefer to live in a country with a limited federal government, strong state’s rights and a strong public morality where the civic code is grounded in Divine and natural law. The Constitution Party advocates for just such a country, and this is why I support the Constitution Party.
 
And just how would it be decided what strong moral code and/or divine guidance we would follow? This country was founded to protect even the smallest minority from tyranny.🤷🤷
 
kozlosap said:
And just how would it be decided what strong moral code and/or divine guidance we would follow? This country was founded to protect even the smallest minority from tyranny.🤷🤷
Click to expand...
I’m fine with a Catholic theocracy. No tyranny there, so long as you toe the line!😃
 
andrewstx said:
What is the difference between a homosexual, and a “homosexualist”?
Click to expand...
As I understand the term, a homosexualist is someone who may or may not be actively homosexual but who supports the homosexual agenda, often militantly.
 
The pendulum is swinging in the direction of gay rights and it’s just a matter of time when gay marriages become legal across America.
 
Robert_Sock said:
The pendulum is swinging in the direction of gay rights and it’s just a matter of time when gay marriages become legal across America.
Click to expand...
There is no homosexual “right” to marry. It is in fact a contradiction in terms.

They have the right to freely associate, shack up, and do whatever they want to do privately. (Just as heterosexual couples do who cohabit instead of marry.)

A “right” to force a private re-definition of marriage on an entire society is a “right” which does not exist.
 
Robert_Sock said:
The pendulum is swinging in the direction of gay rights and it’s just a matter of time when gay marriages become legal across America.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, because America is an increasingly secularist nation, clouded by sin and moral relativism. The point is, how will the Church defend itself? Homosexualists have already sued Protestant and Catholic churches, insisting that they be allowed access to church properties whether for sale or for rent.

The Church and the secular world, ruled by Satan, are at war for the souls of mankind. That is nothing new, it has always been. However in this current struggle many Catholics are trying to appease both Church and secular society. This will not serve- Catholics will need to determine whether or not they stand with the Church, or against it. There can be no middle ground, no lukewarmness- as Christ says to the lukewarm, “I will spit you out of my mouth.” The Revelation to St. John, which all Catholics should read, will play out. No one knows when- perhaps now? Perhaps later? Are you ready? :highprayer::signofcross::gopray2:
 
kozlosap said:
And just how would it be decided what strong moral code and/or divine guidance we would follow? This country was founded to protect even the smallest minority from tyranny.🤷🤷
Click to expand...
That’s the part people conveniently leave out-or haven’t thought through. If the thesis is that “most” Americans are Christian so their will must be done in all things, that can come back to bite you later. What if you live in an area that is no longer predominately Christian? There are sections of the country where Christians are a distinct minority and setting a precedent that the “most” get the tenets of their faith enshrined in law could be a problem later. It always surprises me that the same people who object to Sharia law “because it’s religious” are the ones chanting the loudest to have their religious beliefs become the law of the land. 🤷

And no matter how breathlessly “the family” and “the children” and “natural law” are brought into this particular argument, the basis of those arguments is still in religion. The “family” is defined by your religious bias, how “the children” are raised is defined by religious bias and what is “natural” is defined by religious bias. I’m not using the word “bias” here in a negative way, I’m just saying that we all have a bias that we really can’t remove. I was raised and educated Catholic so that bias exists in my thought process. However, I know that I live in a country that is NOT run by the Catholic church, and I know that there are many people who live around me in this country that have no commitment to the Church. I have to consciously remember that those people have the SAME rights that I do-including the right to worship the way they choose, or not to worship at all.

My responsibility is to live my life according to the commitments I have made, not to force others to live according to them.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
There is no homosexual “right” to marry. It is in fact a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
Homosexuals are human, and the US Supreme Court has determined that in America humans do have the right to marry:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

USSC Loving v Virginia

rossum
 
rossum said:
You are assuming bias without evidence. One court has already looked at the case and has found no such evidence. Previous legal precedent has established that minority judges can try cases involving that minority, and that female judges can try cases involving women’s rights.

Judge Walker’s decision includes a long legal argument, taking 138 pages, setting out the basis in law he used in making his decision. You can read it here:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

It is that legal justification that the USSC will be looking at if they decide to review the case. If you think that Judge Walker made a mistake in law, then his decision is available for you to read and you can point out his error to the USSC.

rossum
Click to expand...
We are talking about different things and going down a rabbit hole. Race and gender are not the same as attraction to the same sex.
 
Faithdancer said:
I’m fine with a Catholic theocracy. No tyranny there, so long as you toe the line!😃
Click to expand...
I would say that is not even necessary. What we need are people to live an authentic Catholic life no matter their occupation. Catholic morality is very compatible with democracy, unlike Islam and other faiths.
 
fix said:
We are talking about different things and going down a rabbit hole. Race and gender are not the same as attraction to the same sex.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link to Judge Walker’s decision. What part of it do you have a problem with?

If there are no problems with his decision, then the Supreme Court will likely either not take up the case, or take it up and allow it to stand. I suspect the former, since the decision relies in part on the presence of Civil Unions in California, which do not apply everywhere outside CA.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Homosexuals are human, and the US Supreme Court has determined that in America humans do have the right to marry:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

USSC Loving v Virginia
Click to expand...
Marriage is more than a contract and same-sex unions are contrary to the existence and survival of man.
Skinner v Oklahoma
Maynard v Hill
 
rossum said:
I gave you a link to Judge Walker’s decision. What part of it do you have a problem with?

If there are no problems with his decision, then the Supreme Court will likely either not take up the case, or take it up and allow it to stand. I suspect the former, since the decision relies in part on the presence of Civil Unions in California, which do not apply everywhere outside CA.

rossum
Click to expand...
That is not proof he is unbiased.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top