They did the right thing. They fought to “impose their religious view” against the “secular government’s” laws which allowed enslavement of human beings. **The same “secular government” you now hold as superior to religious views./**QUOTE]
You do not know me friend.
What COULD be decided by USSC is if the citizens of a particular state have the right to amend their Constitution without the amendment being considered “unconstitutional”. An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional…you are actually CHANGING the constitution. The court’s just is to interpret laws according to the Constitution, so if the people decide that they want to constitution changed, they are guaranteed that right in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution.
It does not make a bit of difference whether I accept or reject the Church’s arguments. I am neither a lawmaker nor a judge. However, if I can poke holes in them, then a talented constitutional lawyer will shred them to pieces.
I assume you are talking about the state constitution, but if so it’s not very topical for this thread. Most constitutions provide the means to change them. Some states do not allow any direct public (name removed by moderator)ut in the matter. In California by contrast, it is fairly easy to get constitutional amendments on the ballot. However, the amendments are only permitted to add on or modify the existing constitution, not completely reorder part of it. That was a question raised about Prop 8 almost two years ago. In the end, the California Supreme Court ruled in Strauss v. Horton that Prop 8 did not reorder the state constitution, and so it was allowed to stand.
True, I had forgotten that it was that long ago. A good friend of mine was clerking for Justice Souter, at the time. The decision was 6-3. One can never predict, but it is likely that the decision would be the same today.
The danger is that it still might be too early. The early “separate but equal” rulings in the black civil rights legal struggle set things back for a while. The Court does not take reversing its earlier decisions lightly, otherwise nobody could rely on its rulings. It may be that one more generation is required. But it appears that we will be finding out shortly.Those attorneys of whom I am acquainted, members of the Society of Friend and United Church of Christ, HOPE this issue will eventually go before the SCOTUS…however they are doubtful that the SCOTUS will hear the case…if it is heard and ruled upon, the conservative judges WILL not be able to use their religious biases to determine law…what will be determined is do gay men and lesbian women have their civil rights curbed due to their sexuality.
Every attorney I have spoken with in Meeting or at the local UCC get together…it is a Constitutional arguement that will allow same sex marriage…those of us who support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in this struggle for equality WANT VERY MUCH for this issue to go before the SCOTUS…for a ruling OR have them decline to hear the case.
Bring it on!!!:
Oh, I didn’t say anything about the end of the millenia or the end of the world. But it might be wise to make preparations for another dark age as our society descends into chaos. The evidence of the direction we have taken in the last sixty years is pretty clear. There have been warnings about failing schools, failing families, a growing entitlement culture, a looming debt crisis. But it’s not a religious argument. Morris Berman, who as near as I can tell has no religion whatever, makes the same case in his book, “The Twilight of American Culture.” The government won’t save us.
I was watching a program decrying the “collapse” of America’s culture and economic standards in todays world. It’s not that America is “failing”…it’s that other countries are now economic powers in their own right…Brazil, China and other formerly undeveloped countries are now “catching up” to us in economics and influence.
rlg94086;8942531:
QUOTE]
You do not know me friend.
The conclusion I came to is based on your posts. You oppose people “imposing their religious views” with regards to “gay marriage,” but you look favorably on the people who “imposed their religious views” with regards to slavery. It is simple hypocrisy.
I’m in favor of people voting/supporting based on their particular viewpoint - whether religious or non-religious. They aren’t “imposing their views” by doing so. They are merely voting their conscience in a pluralistic, democratic republic. It’s what we are all supposed to do. To claim that others can’t “impose their views” because of the basis of their views is contary to what our country is all about.
I think the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional…
What do you think 'bout THAT…!
You can’t have it both ways - say you believe and live a Catholic-Marriage but support “gay marriage,” and then claim to be following Church teaching. The Church, both the USCCB and the Vatican, have been clear in their teaching that we should not support gay marriage or civil unions.
Perhaps.
It would help advance the discussion if you could articulate what the “reasoning of denying” interracial marriage was.
And just so we’re on the same page: you don’t mean *any *consenting adults, right? You mean any consenting adults who are actually free to engage in a marital union, yes?
Well, that will be quite something to see, when marriage has no restrictions but for consent. I can see a huge profit-making scheme on the horizon. There will be many unscrupulous people jumping at the chance to “consensually” marry 50 illegal immigrants at quite a profit per “bride” or “groom”.
robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm
If your conscience disagrees with the Church, then your conscience is misinformed. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Remember, the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).
We can discuss all this when we meet next.
And you saw my answer: The Church cannot teach error in faith and morals. That doesn’t men individual believers–even popes–can’t sin. It does mean that the Church is always right in what it teaches when it comes to faith and morals. To be Catholic is to believe this.
That’s fine to follow your conscience.
I find it odd that people want to separate the Church from God or Christ from His Church, creating a dichotomy as if they’re 2 separate entities. When the body of Christ speaks (that is, the Church) how can it be said to be less authoritative than its head, Christ?
It appears that you are misunderstanding the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. That is, right teaching from right practice.*If that were true then the church would always exemplify love (since God is love) in everything they do. *Unfortunately, they have fallen short at times. *They have not done what Jesus would do (this was hashed out on another thread you saw of mine). *Obviously the majority of Catholics believe this, otherwise you would have a much easier time finding people you like in the Catholic community (or at least an RCIA class you like). *The church recognizes this and has chosen to tolerate it. *Imagine the consequences if they didn’t.