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

[Suudy]

Then I’m sure you’re aware that there are a number of other species on the planet that practice homosexuality and bisexuality, and that in animal communities, sex serves many social functions.

I think you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge on what we mean by “Natural Law”. We don’t mean it occurs in nature. We mean the very nature of a thing. Its natural end. The reason for something existing. The end towards which everything exists.

So it really is irrelevant whether there is homosexuality and bisexuality in nature. It is equally irrelevant whether it serves any social function. The point is that sex serves a natural end of procreation. Homosexuality does not serve that end, and thus is disordered.

Nothing like a little “real biology,” eh?

Snarky, eh? Perhaps before being so, you might want to understand what is meant by terms like “Natural Law” before replying.

 

[Dale_M]

1. “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.

Since the US Constitution doesn’t require marriage to be of opposite sexes, why is this a problem?

1. “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).

Yep, I agree. Its the nature of a pluralistic democracy.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Could you tell me what legislation you are talking about?

Of course it’s about actions, the State is attempting to Institutionalize gay sex.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

In fact, I would argue that it would be improper for an older couple beyond child-bearing age to marry because they know they couldn’t have children.

Sound reasoning before this sentence IMO.

Sometimes it’s not just the geezers like me and my ball and chain who can’t have kids, it happens to young marrieds, too.

 

[scipio337]

I beg to differ. The same amendment granting religious freedom grants people a license to call absolutely anything else they want a “right”. The issue of it being a right is to be debated in the public square.

Who is to determine what rights are genuine in a secular democracy? I submit the answer is definitively not the Catholic, Mormon or Baptist churches. God does not directly speak to us or our leaders.

California gay couples already had equal right, established in domestic partnerships, since 1999.

It wasn’t enough, because it doesn’t create a moral equivalence, or implied acceptance.

 

[Suudy]

Since the US Constitution doesn’t require marriage to be of opposite sexes, why is this a problem?

Indeed. Why is it even being argued as a violation of the US Constitution? Can’t the states decide for themselves?

Oh wait, Marshall changed the thinking on that one.

 

[edwest2]

I personally find it incredibly disgusting that these activist judges can try and rule laws that were passed by a vote unconstitutional. I mean, if you ask me, this law is perfectly in line with the Constitution of the United States of America. I mean, seriously, what is so wrong with it? The United States of America did not have gay “marriage” at all in any state before the year 2000 I believe. In fact, I’d say that we did not have any gay “marriage” in the United States of America before 2005. I am not sure on that one though. According to Wikipedia, the movement of gay rights activists to gain gay “marriage” rights began in the 1970s. This is not surprising. I believe it was either in the 1960s of 1970s when homosexuality was declared to not be a mental disorder. I disagree with this decision of mainstream psychiatry. Homosexuality is most certainly a mental disorder in my opinion. What else could it be? It is objectively disordered and anyone who is in a right state of mind would not be romantically attracted to a person of the same sex. It is as simple as that. Here is the Wikipedia article on gay “marriage” in the United States of America:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

What is next? “Marriage” of humans and animals? Polygamy? Seriously people, this is a slippery slope and we need to insure that we do not continue down this slippery slope. I hope and pray that sometime within the next 5 or 10 years the Supreme Court of the United States would rule that gay “marriage” is unconstitutional and overturn every single law in the United States allowing this abomination.

That said, homosexual persons should not be discriminated against. However, it is not discrimination to deny them that which they were never meant to have. If it was, then the Catholic Church would not also be against both gay “marriage” and discrimination against homosexuals.

We must pray that this nation would not continue down this slippery slope. We must pray that truth and morality would win out in the end.

Please, no more opinions. It was 1969 when the Stonewall Riots marked the beginning of what is called the gay rights movement. Here is a story about the 40th Anniversary:

associatedcontent.com/article/1888804/stonewall_riots_mark_40th_anniversary.html

1973 was the year that a group of gay activists voted to remove Homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It had nothing to do with science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

Marriage is not a faith based term. The term marriage refers to a man and woman who commit to having kids and raising them together. It is based on the natural complementary of the sexes.

According to your faith, of course.

 

[edwest2]

Polygamy is something that could be legalized if people really want to get it legalized. Technically people don’t have to be married but could be living as if they were in polygamous relationships. That is between consenting adults.

Pedophilia and bestiality will never be legalized because they involve a party that cannot make decisions for themselves. What two consenting adults do is different.

Of course, they’ll be legalized. It’s wrong, but the Man Boy Love Association would be for it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[scipio337]

Indeed. Why is it even being argued as a violation of the US Constitution? Can’t the states decide for themselves?

Oh wait, Marshall changed the thinking on that one.

Family law has been under the control of the local government (state) since English Common Law.

In Arizona, two first cousins can get married, provided they are past child-bearing age. In Nevada they cannot.

I’ve always wondered what the “compelling interest” is, and it appears the Supreme Court took the same view in Baker v Nelson.

 

[choy]

Yes, that’s what I meant. As I understand it, polygyny, polyandry, and group marriages can all fall under the umbrella term of polygamy. I think we’ll see examples of all three.

Really? You think there are more adults who want to marry people under the age of 16 to 18 (depending on state) than there are voters between the ages of 18 and 21? I don’t.

does it really matter how many adults want this? gay marriage proponents have always been in the minority, but after losing election after election (they haven’t won one election yet) the judge rules in their favor anyway. as long as there’s a few adults who’s willing to think the unthinkable, it seems someone crazy in the justice system is willing to give them what they want. doesn’t matter if they don’t have the numbers

Animals have very limited rights. Marriage is in no way the next step. Before we got there, we would have to establish property rights, and a lot more besides, including a right not to be killed. I don’t think America is going to give up its burgers. Ever.

really? its harder to kill a baby turtle than a baby human in the US. get a rifle and gun down a Bald Eagle and see how much negative press you’d get. Michael Vick became as evil as Saddam Hussein because he’s fighting dogs, but abortionists get medals. it seems to me that animals has better rights to live than humans.

 

[scipio337]

According to your faith, of course.

I just though I would reiterate this point, Dale:

No religion in the US will be forced to change their religious practices. It would be a violation of the First Amendment. The courts have ruled on this many times.

They risk the potential of losing tax exempt status. See United States v Bob Jones University.

Although some people here have already lauded such a move.

It’s coming.

 

[Dale_M]

They risk the potential of losing tax exempt status. See United States v Bob Jones University.

As I mentioned earlier, Bob Jones University is not a religion.

And tax status, whether exempt or not, doesn’t affect religious practice. Unless, you are saying that the Catholic Church will marry homosexuals in exchange for tax exemption.

 

[estesbob]

:banghead::banghead: Tax-exempt status isn’t about the Church paying taxes. Another thread currently on CAF notes that even many large “for profit” corporations do not pay taxes because the don’t show “below the line” profit. The Church doesn’t make profits so, even without tax-exempt status, they won’t be paying “Caesar”. The negative effect of loss of tax-exempt status is that individuals who donate to the Church won’t be able to claim the donation as a deduction. That means less funds for the Church to use in charitable and faith activities.

The problem with losing yourTax exempt status is that Contributions made to you are no longer tax-deductible.

 

[choy]

Given these legal precedents, what is to prevent the Federal government from stripping the Catholic Church of its 503(c) status for not performing gay marriages??

one thing i like here in Canada is the co-equal respect between the gay community and the religious community in this matter. the gay community cannot force religions to change their moral values nor will the government support them. but on the other hand because of hate crime laws, religions are limited in what they can say against gays

 

[mlund]

This shouldn’t have been any surprise to anyone following the case. The individual justice ruling on this case made it clear that he would not consider the case on its merits, but on his personal preferences. He pointedly ignores the ruling precedent of the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. He asserts his own definition of “marriage” without consideration for the historical and legal definition of marriage. He ruled on the Rational Basis test for the 14th Amendment without giving due deference to the state as is the legal precedent in such a case. Most telling, however, is that he fails to show any valid Rational Basis for conferring benefits upon people who commit homosexual acts while denying such benefits to non-sexual unions. His ruling is clearly political garbage.

This sort of ruling typifies judicial activism: a judge who wishes to create his own legislation from the bench rather than deferring Strict Interpretation of the Constitution. The 9th Circuit has a long track-record of supporting this behavior and being overruled by the Supreme Court. So don’t be surprise when the appeal is upheld by the 9th Circuit to be appealed to the USSJC. Likewise, unless one of the following: Justice Kennedy, Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito; retires or dies and gets replaced by a left-wing loon on the USSJC no one should be surprised when this judge and the 9th Circuit are overruled and reprimanded.

The State has no expressed or explained interest in promoting sexual acts and sexual unions that don’t fit a reproductive model.

• Marty Lund

 

[scipio337]

As I mentioned earlier, Bob Jones University is not a religion.

And tax status, whether exempt or not, doesn’t affect religious practice. Unless, you are saying that the Catholic Church will marry homosexuals in exchange for tax exemption.

I’ve seen no case history that differentiates between a “religious institution”, be it a university, a charity, etc, and a “church”.

I’m pointing out that the Catholic Church may (its almost a certainty, in my mind) lose its tax exempt status, should the Supreme Court uphold the ruling.

I see it as a pretty big deal.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m trying to remember the suit. But there was a lady, in CA I think, that tried to claim that when her dogs attacked a neighbor, she wasn’t responsible since they were their own “persons” and were responsible for their own behavior. And I think a judge bought it.

I remember the case. It involved the death of Diane Whipple by her neighbor’s Presa Canario breed of dogs
articles.sfgate.com/2001-02-07/news/17586903_1_presa-canario-club-guard-dog-diane-whipple

However, to say that an owner of a dog is responsible for its aggression is not to say that the dog is a person.

 

[edwest2]

Can you post some proof that young people are told how to perform gay sex acts?

Here it is:

wnd.com/?pageId=4109

God bless,
Ed

 

[scipio337]

one thing i like here in Canada is the co-equal respect between the gay community and the religious community in this matter. the gay community cannot force religions to change their moral values nor will the government support them. but on the other hand because of hate crime laws, religions are limited in what they can say against gays

That’s arguing on the merits of the application of the law, ie, the good will of others, rather than the law. I’m sorry that it seems we’re all heading down this slippery slope. One can’t be opposed to “gay marriage” without being labled as a “hate-monger” or “homophobic”.