Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[JimG]

You seem to be misinterpreting what I have said. According to another CAF member, marriage is a right under the US Constitution. If marriage is a right, then the 14th amendment would extend marriage rights to gays, as well as heterosexauls. It is a question of equal protection under the law.

I am not saying this is true. But it does seem to be the reasoning of the judge who ruled in the case we are discussing.

Not to answer for another poster–but while I’m not certain that marriage is in the U.S. Constitution, the Catholic Church would certainly consider marriage to be a universal natural right. But the union of same sex couples is not and cannot be marriage. That would, in the view of the Church as well as in the view of most societies in recorded history, be an ontological impossibility.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Are you aware that 78% of all marriages never end in divorce? The state of marriage is far healthier than we are told by the left. The divore rate skyrockets only because many people divorce 2,3,4 and 5 times, which skews the numbers to make it look as if half the marriages end in divorce…not true.

This is very interesting. I believe you, but can you cite a source?

 

[Brooklyn]

The Founding Fathers could not anticipate assault rifles or surgical abortions. The courts have to rule as to their intent.

The courts have no reason to exclude gay marriage. That is all I am saying.

If marriage is indeed a right (which another member claimed via Living v Virginia) then equal protection under the law (as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment) will extend to gay marriage.

So you’re saying that the advance of technology is akin to the moral collapse in our society. Oh that one really works. BTW, abortion was known back in the time of our Founding Fathers (although we didn’t have the method of tearing the baby apart and suctioning it out of the womb, as you say). It was roundly condemned by society. Again, not until our generation has purposely aborting a baby been accepted by a society. Pagan societies did kill their babies, but they did it for their gods. We do it for the god of convenience. Our Founding Fathers did not accept either.

Again, no one in the history of mankind until now has ever envisioned a society where people of the same sex can marry one another. Doesn’t that tell you anything?

 

[Dale_M]

Who says that they will limit it to those in sexual relationship? What is to prevent anybody from marrying anybody? You could marry your best friend, your roomate, whatever.

LOL

Are you seriously suggesting that best friends or roomates will agree to marry you? And that you are willing to take responsibility for their debts?

Of course. “Green Card” marriages are somewhat common in the US. But are you suggesting the heterosexuals will look for yet another financial loophole to exploit?

 

[mlund]

Yeah, sorry, but homosexual relationships are not a new scientific advance or discovery to which we must extend the original understanding of the Constitution. The Framers as well as the people who drafted the 14th Amendment were very much aware of the existence of homosexuality. Their lack of including homosexual acts under the legal definition of marriage and their choice not to include “sexual preference” in the protected classes like race, religion, or gender was not an accident or an oversight. The law was not written to nor intended to force the State to privilege the sexual unions of two men or two women.

• Marty Lund

 

[irishpatrick]

This is very interesting. I believe you, but can you cite a source?

Sure, the United States census.

 

[Dale_M]

So you’re saying that the advance of technology is akin to the moral collapse in our society.

Eh… no . The “Sky is Falling” rhetoric is yours.

 

[gamewell45]

Not to answer for another poster–but while I’m not certain that marriage is in the U.S. Constitution, the Catholic Church would certainly consider marriage to be a universal natural right. But the union of same sex couples is not and cannot be marriage. That would, in the view of the Church as well as in the view of most societies in recorded history, be an ontological impossibility.

Understand that the RC influence only extends as far as its membership and not the public in general; particularly those who are not RC.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Sure, the United States census.

Excellent. This news just made my day. Honestly. Thank you!

 

[Brooklyn]

Eh… no . The “Sky is Falling” rhetoric is yours.

No, that “rhetoric” comes from 2 sources which you reject - the Bible and the Catholic Church. I didn’t make this up. And the history of mankind shows that it is true - when marriage collapses, society collapses. We, unfortunately, will most likely live to see it happen to American society, thanks to people who think as you do.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Understand that the RC influence only extends as far as its membership and not the public in general; particularly those who are not RC.

Tell that to the non-Catholics behind the now defunct Berlin Wall

 

[gamewell45]

Tell that to the non-Catholics behind the now defunct Berlin Wall

Next time I see one, I will.

 

[Dale_M]

Yeah, sorry, but homosexual relationships are not a new scientific advance or discovery to which we must extend the original understanding of the Constitution. The Framers as well as the people who drafted the 14th Amendment were very much aware of the existence of homosexuality. Their lack of including homosexual acts under the legal definition of marriage and their choice not to include “sexual preference” in the protected classes like race, religion, or gender was not an accident or an oversight. The law was not written to nor intended to force the State to privilege the sexual unions of two men or two women.

Perhaps. However, the Framers of the Constitution also gave tacit approval to slavery. Heck, several of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, including Georgie Washington.

However, if you have found a definition of marriage in the US Constitution or its amendments, I would welcome reading it.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

LOL

Are you seriously suggesting that best friends or roomates will agree to marry you? And that you are willing to take responsibility for their debts?

Of course. “Green Card” marriages are somewhat common in the US. But are you suggesting the heterosexuals will look for yet another financial loophole to exploit?

Is there any reason to exclude such relationships or consider them fraud?

Why must two people engage in some form of sexual acts be considered married?

 

[edwest2]

So you’re saying that the advance of technology is akin to the moral collapse in our society. Oh that one really works. BTW, abortion was known back in the time of our Founding Fathers (although we didn’t have the method of tearing the baby apart and suctioning it out of the womb, as you say). It was roundly condemned by society. Again, not until our generation has purposely aborting a baby been accepted by a society. Pagan societies did kill their babies, but they did it for their gods. We do it for the god of convenience. Our Founding Fathers did not accept either.

Again, no one in the history of mankind until now has ever envisioned a society where people of the same sex can marry one another. Doesn’t that tell you anything?

The Founding Fathers were certainly aware of homosexuality.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Understand that the RC influence only extends as far as its membership and not the public in general; particularly those who are not RC.

Is that why secular people are so concerned about what the Catholic Church teaches? They post here all the time.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Next time I see one, I will.

My point is that JP2 was the cause of it’s fall (along with Reagan, Thatcher and Lech Wałęsa).

You stated that RC has no influence outside of RC. Which is patently false

 

[Dale_M]

Why must two people engage in some form of sexual acts be considered married?

I think the reason that a couple (gay or straight) seeks to be married is for the social approval and the legal benefits.

 

[gamewell45]

Is there any reason to exclude such relationships or consider them fraud?

Why must two people engage in some form of sexual acts be considered married?

You raise a very good point that perhaps many of us may have missed.

 

[Brooklyn]

Perhaps. However, the Framers of the Constitution also gave tacit approval to slavery. Heck, several of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, including Georgie Washington.

However, if you have found a definition of marriage in the US Constitution or its amendments, I would welcome reading it.

Yes, you’re right, some of the Founding Fathers did own slaves, however, George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson wanted to free his slaves, but his financial situation wouldn’t allow him to do it. Also, because of the evil of slavery, our country paid the price of the Civil War, and are still paying that price to this day.

What will be the price we will pay if we destroy the God-created relationship of marriage?

And why do you keep asking for a definition of marriage in the Constitution. You know it isn’t there because there was no need for it at that time. I’ve written it 100 times already, but until our generation, the definition of marriage has always been a relationship beween a man and a woman. It would be like putting the definition of rain in the Constitution.