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

[Rich_Olszewski]

Again, this judge ignored all the legalites of the matter, and instead focused on his own desires as a homosexual.

This is ridiculous.

1. Can you substantiate your accusation?
2. If a Catholic judge were rulling on a matter that touched on Catholicism, would you say that the judge would ignore the legalities of the case, but focus only on his Catholicism? If so, then you are like those Protestants who used to think that a Catholic could not be President of the United States because he’d be taking his all orders from a foreign prince, the Pope.

 

[Exalt]

Again with the false statements. There is no such “evidence.” There was a grade-school level, unscholarly “study” that asked softball questions in a “survey.”

Huh? That’s silly. There are dozens and dozens of studies on the issue.

Check out the American Academy of Pediatrics policy position on gay rights. Scroll down to the section titled “Psychosocial Characteristics of Gay and Lesbian Parents and their Children.” Twenty-five studies are referenced that explore the question, finding that, children raised by gay couples “develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents.” And that was published in 2006. There are a number of new studies that have come out since then that strengthen that argument even more.

And like I said earlier in this thread, it’s not just the Academy of Pediatrics. The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the the American Medical Association have all issued policy statements that gays should be allowed to adopt children and agree that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are on the whole no different from any other children.

This is why gay adoption bans have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional. There’s just no rational basis for it. There’s no evidence that says gays are worse parents than straight people, and there’s a massive wealth of evidence that says children that come from gay couples are pretty much the same as children that come from heterosexual couples.

Wrong again. But this is no surprise. You just make it up as you go along. It would help if you actually learn the law, including local/state law. For example, dioceses in CA are required to recognize Registered Domestic (homosexual) Partners. They must give them things like Bereavement time equal to whatever a heterosexual spouse would get, etc.

I’d like to learn more about this. Do you have a link to more information?

 

[scipio337]

Just because a Church has a particular branch doesn’t mean it gets all the constitutional protections under the First Amendment. If a Church founds a university, that university is held to a higher standard (as in Bob Jones University v. US). If it founds a hospital, that hospital is held to a higher standard. If it founds an adoption agency, that adoption agency is held to a higher standard.

But the specific “house of worship” function – a church, not a hospital, adoption agency, or school – is and always has been specifically protected by the First Amendment.

Please show where the case history of setting a different standard between “particular branch” protections and “house of worship” functions. I would point to Reynolds v. United States AND US v Bob Jones University as proof they aren’t held to any different standard, that free exercise can be thrown out of the window when civil law is violated.

As Elizabeth502 has also pointed out. Provide the case history.

One member here is already confirming that the Catholic Church should lose its 501c3 status if it refuses to perform gay marriages.

 

[Brooklyn]

No. it’s not a mission field, any more than Steubenville is.

I had to look to make sure you are Catholic. How can you say that those poor lost souls in California and most of the rest of the nation are not in desperate need of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ? When you mention Steubenville, I’m assuming you are talking about Franciscan University. The Gospel is already there. But when a state makes a ruling that approves of homosexuality, it shows most clearly that people there are spiritually lost.

Yes, the United States is a mission field. Where in the world are you coming from? I’m flabbergasted. Don’t you believe the statement of Jesus Christ, to preach the Gospel to the lost?

 

[irishpatrick]

Just because a Church has a particular branch doesn’t mean it gets all the constitutional protections under the First Amendment. If a Church founds a university, that university is held to a higher standard (as in Bob Jones University v. US). If it founds a hospital, that hospital is held to a higher standard. If it founds an adoption agency, that adoption agency is held to a higher standard.

But the specific “house of worship” function – a church, not a hospital, adoption agency, or school – is and always has been specifically protected by the First Amendment.

You just cannot see, can you? The point I am making is that Catholic Charities fell under the umbrella of the Church, whether or not it was viewed at a different level is utterly beside the point, it was and is a faithbased religious orginization.

The point is, those charities should NOT have been forced to allow gays to adopt–Catholic Charities because CC is a religious group. The constitution tells us that we have freedom of religion, and that congress cannot craft any law prohibiting religion, yet in the case I cite that is 100% what happened. Catholic Charities is a FATIH-BASED RELIGIOUS group! Let me repeat: Catholic Charities is faith based religious group and they were forced to allow adoptions to gay couples or shutdown their adoptions…they chose the latter because of their faith.

Beyond that, there is simply no way that the left will not craft laws to force churches to comply with marriage laws…zero chance…zero. This will happen, just wait and see. Fifteen years ago few people would ever have thought we could drop to this level of attacks upon the faith, yet here were are.

The truth is civil unions with the same legal rights should be more than enough, yet it is not enough because the left also wants the word “marriage.” In the future they will not want to think that they are banned from anything “straights” can receive, so they will craft laws (under federal discrimination and hate crimes umbrellas) and sue churches until they get what they want. The left leaning courts will uphold those laws, just like yesterday’s ruling and the SC will get those cases and will affirm the cases as well.

It is not a matter of if, only of when.

 

[scipio337]

This is why gay adoption bans have been consistently struck down as unconstitutional. There’s just no rational basis for it. …

Free exercise claus of the 1st Amendment? I would argue the state has no compelling interest to override those beliefs.

 

[bingbang]

Of course…that is my point. It would sicken me to live there. Right is wrong and wrong is right in CA, and I see no way to reverse the mess.

This is so ridiculous. You aren’t upset by the extremely materialistic nature of many people in California and the greed that it breeds, but you are upset because two guys down the street want to get married.

Matthew 7:3

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Free exercise claus of the 1st Amendment?.

Adoption services aren’t a religion; they’re businesses which engage in nothing less than human trafficking and nothing in the first Amendment exempts anyone from the rule of law.

 

[bingbang]

I prefer to believe we’re still wrestling for the soul of this nation.

This isn’t a Christian nation and it shouldn’t be. It is a nation that is based on religious freedom where one religion doesn’t rule the land. That is kind of what America was based on…

 

[bingbang]

The thing that drives me nut is we would not be in this mess if Catholics voted like Catholics.

All Catholics should be republicans? I guess economics and views on taxation and business shouldn’t go into voting? My grandfather was a model Catholic who did more for the church and other people than anyone I have ever met, and he was a democrat. Stop trying to force your views on others. In every other country in the world things like abortion and gay marriage are not political issues that decide elections. Remember that.

 

[Brooklyn]

Adoption services aren’t a religion; they’re businesses and nothing in the first Amendment exempts anyone from the rule of law.

You are showing your total ignorance of what Catholic charities are all about. The reason for any Catholic service - be it hospital, schools, charities, adoption services, etc. - is to fulfill the mission given to us by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church’s intention has never been to make money out of it, but to win souls and take care of the widows and orphans. The Catholic Church is a non-profit organziation, always has been and always will be. That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been individuals who have strayed from that, but making money as a “business” has never been the primary intent.

 

[irishpatrick]

This is so ridiculous. You aren’t upset by the extremely materialistic nature of many people in California and the greed that it breeds, but you are upset because two guys down the street want to get married.

Matthew 7:3

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

No, I am upset with both, but thanks for asking.

I look at the speck in my own eyes all the time…it has nothing at all to do with this. But again, thanks for raising the point and for the assist.

 

[crazzeto]

All Catholics should be republicans? I guess economics and views on taxation and business shouldn’t go into voting? My grandfather was a model Catholic who did more for the church and other people than anyone I have ever met, and he was a democrat. Stop trying to force your views on others. In every other country in the world things like abortion and gay marriage are not political issues that decide elections. Remember that.

Where do you get the idea that “Catholics voting as Catholic” means they become mindless republican drones? We have our issues with the GOP as well.

 

[edwest2]

OK, of course I can explain it to you in a respectful manner.

Marriage offers us the chance to be treated as an EQUAL HUMAN BEING. You are denying us the chance to have every opportunity that everyone else in the world has. You are saying that we do not the deserve FULLY to be treated as humans because you disagree with our sex lives.

Marriage may just be a word; but how would you feel if you only were able to have a Civil Union because you were Catholic, or because of whatever your race is? You would be outrage and you would want the right to call it a marriage right? EVEN IF other people did not see it as one, correct?

Now I am NOT saying that you are out to “get us”.

What I am saying is that if you have no problem with Jewish people getting a legal marriage or Agnostic people getting a legal marriage or Atheists getting a legal marriage, and even satanists getting a legal marriage. So you should not have a problem with members of the LGBT community getting a legal marriage. Since none of those marriages are valid according to the Catholic Church, then this should be taken the same way. Basically live and let us live with dignity and full human rights.

It is more than that because plain and simple this is a more than a marriage issue, it is even more than a rights issue, it is a DIGNITY issue. We deserve to be seen as FULL HUMAN BEINGS.

I can’t respond back to this because I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here. Please clarify it for me. What position are you referring to? Which ruling? Thank you.

Are you saying that you respect the fact that even though I am gay and living a gay lifestlye, that I am also Catholic and have not left the Church? If that’s what you mean, then thank you.

After my many trips to the Emergency Room at the hospital where I worked, we had the occasional patient who came in with a sex related problem. Guess what? They were all treated as equal human beings. We regarded the fact that they were all human with dignity and were full human beings. However, the doctors did have to tell certain people to avoid doing certain things regarding sexual activity.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Brooklyn]

This isn’t a Christian nation and it shouldn’t be. It is a nation that is based on religious freedom where one religion doesn’t rule the land. That is kind of what America was based on…

No, it’s not a Christian nation in that there is no official national religion. But this nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. I know the Left loves to deny it, but our founding documents say: “All men have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” - that is a principle directly from the Bible used by Jews and Christians.

 

[irishpatrick]

You are showing your total ignorance of what Catholic charities are all about. The reason for any Catholic service - be it hospital, schools, charities, adoption services, etc. - is to fulfill the mission given to us by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church’s intention has never been to make money out of it, but to win souls and take care of the widows and orphans. The Catholic Church is a non-profit organziation, always has been and always will be. That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been individuals who have strayed from that, but making money as a “business” has never been the primary intent.

Exactly. The thing we see here are people who want to deny that Cathoplic Charities is a religious group and that it was founded by Catholics to serve the mission of Christ. They want to deny that so the events in Boston sem less troublesome. However, the truth cannot be denied that easily…Catholic Charities was forced to stop their adoption services because the state was forcing them to turn their backs on their faith. It never ceases to amaze me how people so often ignore what “freedom of religion” actually means.

 

[Suudy]

The only reason Peter Kreeft decides to point out that gays are the only sinners who seem to revel in their sin is because he thinks that being gay and engaging in homosexual relationships is wrong. If he believed it was okay, he’d have no problem with gay pride than he does pride in being a military service-member, or athlete, or whatever.

You are correct. I misquoted him (I was trying to quote from memory). I listened to the lecture again, and here’s what he said. He is recounting a conversation with a homosexual activist that also claimed to be Catholic.

“You are the only sinners that identify with your sin. Alcoholics don’t say ‘I am an alcoholic’ (except at AA meetings where they are repenting of it). Cowards, like myself, do not say ‘I am a coward. I am a human being with cowardly habits, alas.’ So why is this so different?”

So the point is that those Catholics that support gay “marriage” or even gay relationships, are engaging in this type of thinking.

 

[bingbang]

Where do you get the idea that “Catholics voting as Catholic” means they become mindless republican drones? We have our issues with the GOP as well.

I am sure that you do have issues with republicans, but the person obviously meant that Catholics should vote republican.

 

[rlg94086]

Too many pages/posts to quote, so…

1. Regarding the “this is what is most important to conservatives?” (vs economy, war, etc.) argument: nice try. First of all, the reverse could be argued against those who feel the most important thing is to overturn the will of the people and force “gay marriage” onto an unwilling society. Second, we are responding to a news item…do you recommend we wait a couple of years for the economy to improve before we respond?
2. “Unconstitutional” - marriage is non-discriminatory as it stands. A union between a man and woman has some restrictions (eg close relation, only two). The Constitution allows for those restrictions and does not require that the definition be changed to include two people of the same sex. Sexual preference is not the same as race.
3. “Forcing of religious views” - everyone in our society is allowed to vote their conscience. As Catholics, we absolutely should vote based on our beliefs, as long as what we support is constitutional (see item 2). I realize some Catholics have bought into the anything-goes mantra of secular society, and that is sad. We don’t have to and shouldn’t base our society on the lowest common denominator.

 

[irishpatrick]

No, it’s not a Christian nation in that there is no official national religion. But this nation is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. I know the Left loves to deny it, but our founding documents say: “All men have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” - that is a principle directly from the Bible used by Jews and Christians.

If you set out to create a secular utopia, than you must get rid of the family and get rid of truth faith. That is obvious…look at the many times this has been tried throughout history and it is always a two pronged attack: (1) Get rid of families; (2) Get rid of Churches and houses of faith.