Ruling takes aim at Church

[irishpatrick]

Yes, if civil unions actually did convey the same legal and financial rights as marriage, it probably would have been fine. After all, what is in a name?

**
==> They want the name! Read the judge’s ruling…he felt anything short of marriage was unacceptable.**

However, the push for marriage is because civil unions have not (despite their possible intent) provided the same legal and financial rights as marriage. Here is a statement by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission:

**==> By some, that is true. By many others they want the word as well as the legal rights. They want absolutely the same thing heteros get…and not one single bit difference.
BTW, the CA civil unions did provide the same legal rights and that was not good enough.
**

I don’t think there is anything in the federal court rulings of the past 200 years which supports the scenario you paint. While individuals have a right to worship any way they want, they do not have the right to force others to accept their brand of worship.

==> The hate crimes laws, along with discrimnations laws, are part of this attack. They will use those laws to sue Churches into compliance, thereby bypassing the Constitution. Just look at how the Diocese of Boston was legally forced to allow gay couples to adopt–that sort of thing will be everywhere and always against the Christian churches.

==> It most be noted that the left has already sold the false myth of seperation of Church and State. Most people believe that actually exists, when nowhere in our founding documents does such a wall exist, other than the state cannot touch religion, not the other way around. The left could not care less about the Constitution, they care about what they think is right and wrong and they care about their agenda to build a culture of complete equality of result, they do not care if our liberties are lost getting there. They will use any tool they can to get their way, and they know that the RCC stands in direct opposition to their plans.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

This will go to the Supreme Court, don’t you think we should wait until that decision is in before we run around like our hair is on fire?

 

[irishpatrick]

This will go to the Supreme Court, don’t you think we should wait until that decision is in before we run around like our hair is on fire?

No, because if we do not created an uproar, than this will just go by and our religious liberties will be slammed into history. We stand now, or forever hold our peace. The last 20 years or so we have seen the frog in the pot analogy unfolding right before our eyes. The left has tossed this nation into a cold pot of water and it has slowly increased the heat, most people do not see it and they do not care…eventually the heat will be so high that there will be literally no turning back…we are, imo, very close to that point.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

No, because if we do not created an uproar, than this will just go by and our religious liberties will be slammed into history. We stand now, or forever hold our peace. The last 20 years or so we have seen the frog in the pot analogy unfolding right before our eyes. The left has tossed this nation into a cold pot of water and it has slowly increased the heat, most people do not see it and they do not care…eventually the heat will be so high that there will be literally no turning back…we are, imo, very close to that point.

What are you going to protest? The Church is already vehemently and vocally opposed to same-sex marriage and no US court has taken any action, or even mentioned any action to force the Church to marry same-sex couples. Considering the population of Christians and like-thinking Jews in the US do you really think the government wants a confrontation as severe as what has been suggested in this thread?

 

[irishpatrick]

What are you going to protest? The Church is already vehemently and vocally opposed to same-sex marriage and no US court has taken any action, or even mentioned any action to force the Church to marry same-sex couples. Considering the population of Christians and like-thinking Jews in the US do you really think the government wants a confrontation as severe as what has been suggested in this thread?

Christians? Marginal at best, non-Christians at the extreme…that is the problem, people are bascially pagans today and they are apapthetic about the faith and its moral teachings. That will lead to enormous loss of religious freedoms, and than eventually other freedoms will go as well.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

1. The Catholic Church isn’t forced to marry people without anulments.
2. No wacky fundamentalist church in the USA has ever been forced to marry interracial couples.

So why would gay marriage become an issue?

 

[wisdomseeker]

We already know that the left and some gays have no desire for compromise. They want marriage exactly as heteros have marriage and they will not stop until they get that. If they were willing to compromise, than Civil Unions that hold the same legals rights as marriage would have been fine…we now know there is no compromise.

I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the CA decision, which will than create a rapid firestorm of states passing similar legislation using the SC decision as their foundation, and they will all be approved. Eventually same sex marriage will be codified as a right on the federal level. **Once that happens gays will sue any Church that refuse to marry them; they will use a platform of hate crime laws and discrimination laws to sue those churches into compliance, the courts will side with them because same sex marriage will then be **considered a fundamental right for the entire nation. This will all bypass the Constitution because the courts will state that worshippers still have a right to worship as they see fit.

I expect this to happen within ten years.

specially those already inside of some parishes that already accepted them. they dont even have to sue because certain Catholic Church are already on their side. just look at that parish St Francis of Xavier. i dont know why they are using the name of this Saint when they are bringing shame to the Church.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Christians? Marginal at best, non-Christians at the extreme…that is the problem, people are bascially pagans today and they are apapthetic about the faith and its moral teachings. That will lead to enormous loss of religious freedoms, and than eventually other freedoms will go as well.

Perhaps that may eventually happen, there is already the Obama administration use of the term Freedom of Worship in lieu of Freedom of Religion which has slipped through without much notice and almost no public comment, not even from the USCCB. If we lose our Freedom of Religion it will be more likely through the ignorance of the people than a one-topic battle between the government and the people. If we want to take them on we should start with the more immediate danger of Freedom of Worship and get that term publicly recognized and condemned for what it really means to all religions.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I agree and I think that is exactly where we are heading if things do not change very soon. It will become a crime to speak against homsexual acts or to even recite the Bible passages that condemn those acts.

I believe in 10-15 years we will be forced to begin a path to underground churches. This will happen because so-called Catholics utterly refuse to be “Catholic.”

if the leaders of the Church lived according to the teachings of the Church, this would not be happened.

 

[irishpatrick]

1. The Catholic Church isn’t forced to marry people without anulments.
2. No wacky fundamentalist church in the USA has ever been forced to marry interracial couples.

So why would gay marriage become an issue?

Simple. The left and many gays want exactly what heteros have and they will sue to get it…the past 10-15 years proves that.

 

[irishpatrick]

if the leaders of the Church lived according to the teachings of the Church, this would not be happened.

Exactly. Yet, we can see even on this board a great resistance to what is actually taking place before our eyes.

 

[irishpatrick]

Perhaps that may eventually happen, there is already the Obama administration use of the term Freedom of Worship in lieu of Freedom of Religion which has slipped through without much notice and almost no public comment, not even from the USCCB. If we lose our Freedom of Religion it will be more likely through the ignorance of the people than a one-topic battle between the government and the people. If we want to take them on we should start with the more immediate danger of Freedom of Worship and get that term publicly recognized and condemned for what it really means to all religions.

That is as good a place to start as any.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Exactly. Yet, we can see even on this board a great resistance to what is actually taking place before our eyes.

i remember that we had a priest one time and he absolutely forbid any one of talking negative about any issue. so no one could ever mention anything that was going on around us. he always called it negative talk. that is a big problem because if you cannot see what is really going on, and if you dont know or refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong, how can you even try to stop?

 

[irishpatrick]

i remember that we had a priest one time and he absolutely forbid any one of talking negative about any issue. so no one could ever mention anything that was going on around us. he always called it negative talk. that is a big problem because if you cannot see what is really going on, and if you dont know or refuse to acknowledge that there is something wrong, how can you even try to stop?

Exactly. I agree.

 

[Dale_M]

They want the name! Read the judge’s ruling…he felt anything short of marriage was unacceptable.

But why did he say that? For reason of name only? Or because the benefits of civil union fell short of the benefits of marriage?

BTW, the CA civil unions did provide the same legal rights and that was not good enough.

I am sure that was the intent in passing the law. But I am not sure that is how it actually worked in practice.

The hate crimes laws, along with discrimnations laws, are part of this attack. They will use those laws to sue Churches into compliance, thereby bypassing the Constitution. Just look at how the Diocese of Boston was legally forced to allow gay couples to adopt–that sort of thing will be everywhere and always against the Christian churches.

An adoption service, partially funded with government dollars, is not a religious practices. A marriage ceremony is a religious practice, and protected by the First Amendment.

It most be noted that the left has already sold the false myth of seperation of Church and State. Most people believe that actually exists, when nowhere in our founding documents does such a wall exist, other than the state cannot touch religion, not the other way around.

The phrase “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution or its amendments. However, the federal courts have ruled many times that the First Amendment includes such a separation, and this has limited government intervention in religion.

 

[irishpatrick]

But why did he say that? For reason of name only? Or because the benefits of civil union fell short of the benefits of marriage?

I am sure that was the intent in passing the law. But I am not sure that is how it actually worked in practice.

An adoption service, partially funded with government dollars, is not a religious practices. A marriage ceremony is a religious practice, and protected by the First Amendment.

The phrase “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution or its amendments. However, the federal courts have ruled many times that the First Amendment includes such a separation, and this has limited government intervention in religion.

It strikes me that we could go back forth forever on this. We disagree. No point in saying why, you will not agree.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Yes, if civil unions actually did convey the same legal and financial rights as marriage, it probably would have been fine. After all, what is in a name?

However, the push for marriage is because civil unions have not (despite their possible intent) provided the same legal and financial rights as marriage. Here is a statement by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission:

state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf

I don’t think there is anything in the federal court rulings of the past 200 years which supports the scenario you paint. While individuals have a right to worship any way they want, they do not have the right to force others to accept their brand of worship.

Thanks for posting this. I didn’t understand the difference between civil unions and marriage.

 

[irishpatrick]

Thanks for posting this. I didn’t understand the difference between civil unions and marriage.

That is, however, just one view of civil unions. Look-up the CA law to learn more. Civil unions in CA provide the same legal benefits that marriaged does in that state.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think Al Kresta hit the nail on the head when he raised the “marriage” question as it might pertain to bisexuals, homosexual polygamists and hetero polygamists, and folks who participate in beastiality.

Why shouldn’t these folks be allowed to “marry”?

Can I marry my car and claim gas as a deductible?

 

[ConstantineTG]

On a serious note, here in Canada same sex marriage has been around for a while and no one is forcing the Cathoilc Church to marry same sex couples. They recognize its a function of the state and they respect the religious freedom of the Church so won’t impose anything on the Church.

On the downside, any talk against gays can be construed as hate speech here. So the Church is very limited in its anti-gay marriage speech.