Ruling takes aim at Church

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

That still doesn’t make any sense. There’s no legal justification that can ever be found in US law to force a Church to do anything. All that can happen is the government can refuse federal funding and loans.

 

[irishpatrick]

That still doesn’t make any sense. There’s no legal justification that can ever be found in US law to force a Church to do anything. All that can happen is the government can refuse federal funding and loans.

Happens a lot nowadays.

Despite what some think, Catholic Charities is a religious organization and it was stopped from banning adoption by gay couples. That diocese chose to stop doing adoptions.

Across the country Catholic pharmacists are routinely forced to make utterly unfair choices, they must either fill prescriptions that they feel are immoral according to their faith, or they must quite their jobs. Their right to freedom of religion and the free expression of their faith is cast aside for secular laws.

In the near future a gay couple will bring a lawsuit against a Catholic Church stating that the Church has broken federal law by discriminating against them and that the breach of the law constitutes a hate crime. The entire purpose of creating hate crimes laws is to be able to attack the Church and it will happen within 10 years…imo. Get ready for it now.

There are all sorts of civil laws that apply to Churches, the marriage laws accepting gay marriages will simply be another one.

Think also of how Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors. Many groups are now attempting to legally force them into doing abortions, even though it goes against their Catholic faith and mission. In fact, the ACLU is pursuing attempts to get federal regulations mandating Catholics Hospitals muist do abortions across the nation.

 

[irishpatrick]

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.

Just watch, it is a matter of time. Plans do not get invoked all at once, they come at us one small piece at a time. As you said, the Church is already limited in the way it can speak because civil laws define any anti-gay speech as a hate crime. I predict within 2-5 years we will hear the first case of a Canadian suing a RCC to be married and they will win!

 

[Eris_Discordia]

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”?

Wow… Really? I’m bisexual, and I’m in a monogamous relationship. Being bisexual does not mean free pass to sleep with everyone. As for what else you listed: Bestiality can not happen, because there is no consent, and polygamy is a religious idea, with specific rules stating that one man can have multiple wives, so that won’t happen. If you mean polyandry, then it won’t happen because it would be a pain for the courts to process.
*Edit: Grammar fail.

 

[irishpatrick]

Wow… Really? I’m bisexual, and I’m in a monogamous relationship. Being bisexual does not mean free pass to sleep with everyone. As for what else you listed: Bestiality can not happen, because there is no consent, and polygamy is a religious idea, with specific rules stating that one man can have multiple wives, so that won’t happen. If you mean polyandry, then it won’t happen because it would be a pain for the courts to process.
*Edit: Grammar fail.

Wait! Not so fast!

What is wrong with any of those relationships? What if someone did want to marry their dog, or a man with two women, or one women and five men, or a cousin and cousin, or anything else one could think of? Why not give those “relationships” a civil marriage license? After all, it seems the state has no interest in marriage, so why not?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Happens a lot nowadays.

Despite what some think, Catholic Charities is a religious organization and it was stopped from banning adoption by gay couples. That diocese chose to stop doing adoptions.

There’s a huge difference between a religious organization and a Church. A religious organization that partners with civil government is subject to civil government. Otherwise the KKK would be allowed to run adoption agencies.

Across the country Catholic pharmacists are routinely forced to make utterly unfair choices, they must either fill prescriptions that they feel are immoral according to their faith, or they must quite their jobs. Their right to freedom of religion and the free expression of their faith is cast aside for secular laws.

Once again, completely different issues than forcing a Church to to violate its tennents.

In the near future a gay couple will bring a lawsuit against a Catholic Church stating that the Church has broken federal law by discriminating against them and that the breach of the law constitutes a hate crime. The entire purpose of creating hate crimes laws is to be able to attack the Church and it will happen within 10 years…imo. Get ready for it now.

It’d never happen. The “entire purpose of hate crime laws” has nothing to do with the Church. Unless the Church advocates the physical assault of homosexuals, nothing can be done to the Church. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear on that.

There are all sorts of civil laws that apply to Churches, the marriage laws accepting gay marriages will simply be another one.

Why? We’re not obligated to accept any other marriage license.

Think also of how Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors. Many groups are now attempting to legally force them into doing abortions, even though it goes against their Catholic faith and mission. In fact, the ACLU is pursuing attempts to get federal regulations mandating Catholics Hospitals muist do abortions across the nation.

Once again: you take Caeser’s money, you play by Caeser’s rules.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Wait! Not so fast!

What is wrong with any of those relationships? What if someone did want to marry their dog, or a man with two women, or one women and five men, or a cousin and cousin, or anything else one could think of? Why not give those “relationships” a civil marriage license? After all, it seems the state has no interest in marriage, so why not?

Polygamy is, obviously, the next step. However, a dog lacks intellect and will to enter into a legally binding contract.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Happens a lot nowadays.

Despite what some think, Catholic Charities is a religious organization and it was stopped from banning adoption by gay couples. That diocese chose to stop doing adoptions.

Across the country Catholic pharmacists are routinely forced to make utterly unfair choices, they must either fill prescriptions that they feel are immoral according to their faith, or they must quite their jobs. Their right to freedom of religion and the free expression of their faith is cast aside for secular laws.

In the near future a gay couple will bring a lawsuit against a Catholic Church stating that the Church has broken federal law by discriminating against them and that the breach of the law constitutes a hate crime. The entire purpose of creating hate crimes laws is to be able to attack the Church and it will happen within 10 years…imo. Get ready for it now.

There are all sorts of civil laws that apply to Churches, the marriage laws accepting gay marriages will simply be another one.

Think also of how Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors. Many groups are now attempting to legally force them into doing abortions, even though it goes against their Catholic faith and mission. In fact, the ACLU is pursuing attempts to get federal regulations mandating Catholics Hospitals muist do abortions across the nation.

First and most critical; pray then pray some more;
second, Catholic organizations must stop taking money from any government agency, we cannot effectively fight the agency that is paying our bills;
third, we must be prepared to resist government demands to violate the tenets of our faith no matter what the cost;
finally, all the assistance we currently provide will fall upon the government and literally bring the government managed physical and mental health systems to it’s knees and drive the welfare system into chaos. The last statistic I saw indicated Christian Health service provide about a third of all health services in the US.

 

[irishpatrick]

There’s a huge difference between a religious organization and a Church. A religious organization that partners with civil government is subject to civil government. Otherwise the KKK would be allowed to run adoption agencies.

Once again, completely different issues than forcing a Church to to violate its tennents.

It’d never happen. The “entire purpose of hate crime laws” has nothing to do with the Church. Unless the Church advocates the physical assault of homosexuals, nothing can be done to the Church. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear on that.

Why? We’re not obligated to accept any other marriage license.

Once again: you take Caeser’s money, you play by Caeser’s rules.

You go ahead and keep saying it is different, and than one day when the RCC is forced to marry same sex couples (not long from now either), please recall that you were warned that it would happen. The state has NO business and NO right to do any of the things I listed, the state just CHOSE to create those rights and those laws out of thin air and 100% against the 1st amendment. If you do not believe that the churches will have to marry same sex couples, than watch the news and see for yourself. As for me, I know it will happen unless things change in the way Christians practice their faith. I know!

As for not accepting other arrangements, those people in those arrangements do not have the power and the agenda that the left has. Simple how things work really…power can walk through consitutional protections like they are not even there. I never dreamed I see the breaches against the first amendment that we already witness…so gay marriage being forced on churches will happen now that we see how far the left will go.

It also does not help that Christians are not united in this, there are churches that already marry same sex couples and lawsuits will use those as background to the viability of doing so. This will never fall to being a constitutional challenge, rather it will be a battle fought along discrimination and hate crimes laws and the Church will lose! It is losing battles all the time, as I listed above.

Sadly, we will also see some Catholic clergy willing to marry gay couples, which will also work against the Church.

The interesting thing will be to watch and see how the RCC reacts to being forced to marry gay couples. Will the RCC comply in order to remain open with the hope that God will understand, or will they shut their doors and go underground?

 

[irishpatrick]

First and most critical; pray then pray some more;
second, Catholic organizations must stop taking money from any government agency, we cannot effectively fight the agency that is paying our bills;
third, we must be prepared to resist government demands to violate the tenets of our faith no matter what the cost;
finally, all the assistance we currently provide will fall upon the government and literally bring the government managed physical and mental health systems to it’s knees and drive the welfare system into chaos. The last statistic I saw indicated Christian Health service provide about a third of all health services in the US.

I agree, pray, pray, pray and than pray. A first good step would be for churches to dump their tax exempt status (which btw they should not have to do). Yet, the ball rolling down hill will still catch up to the churches…and not long from now. People are increasingly seeing gay marriage as a fundamnetal right…and they will not for long tolerate the churches saying no…they just won’t.

 

[irishpatrick]

Polygamy is, obviously, the next step. However, a dog lacks intellect and will to enter into a legally binding contract.

People already want to be able to sue on behalf of their pets.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That still doesn’t make any sense. There’s no legal justification that can ever be found in US law to force a Church to do anything. All that can happen is the government can refuse federal funding and loans.

Thats how it is now. But things change. After all, the supreme court judges don’t have to look at the actual words of the constitution anymore, they can interpret them to mean new things.

In Canada we had the government summon a bishop to a human rights council because he asked a homosexual to not be an altar server. Before that, we all thought the government wouldn’t get involved in church matters. Also, a Catholic school was forced to allow two gay high school kids to attent the prom together. Also, Catholic schools are being forced to teach a state-imposed course on world religions.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There’s a huge difference between a religious organization and a Church. A religious organization that partners with civil government is subject to civil government. Otherwise the KKK would be allowed to run adoption agencies.

Once again, completely different issues than forcing a Church to to violate its tennents.

It’d never happen. The “entire purpose of hate crime laws” has nothing to do with the Church. Unless the Church advocates the physical assault of homosexuals, nothing can be done to the Church. The 1st Amendment is pretty clear on that.

Why? We’re not obligated to accept any other marriage license.

Once again: you take Caeser’s money, you play by Caeser’s rules.

there are many cases at least in canada and other parts of the world in which a priest speaking against homosexuals is forbid under penalties of fines or imprisonment. what is going to take for other things to be forced into the Church? not much.

 

[irishpatrick]

Thats how it is now. But things change. After all, the supreme court judges don’t have to look at the actual words of the constitution anymore, they can interpret them to mean new things.

In Canada we had the government summon a bishop to a human rights council because he asked a homosexual to not be an altar server. Before that, we all thought the government wouldn’t get involved in church matters. Also, a Catholic school was forced to allow two gay high school kids to attent the prom together. Also, Catholic schools are being forced to teach a state-imposed course on world religions.

It is no long a matter of “if,” simply “when.”

Faithful Catholics had better prepare themselves now…real persecution of the Church will happen in the USA, and soft persecution has already been underway for many years.

 

[Nix89]

Greetings all! This is a good discussion. May I add my view? What I see happening next is the 9th Circuit upholding Walker’s decision. If it then goes to the SCOTUS one of 2 things will happen. They will refuse to hear it, which is what I’m betting on - I don’t think Roberts has the guts - OR they will hear it and the current makeup of the court will leave the ruling as it stands. So either way we wind up with a ‘follow-up’ to Roe v. Wade. The Church will do what it has to do to be true to itself. It will not fold to the fad of homosexuality. It’s gone underground before, it can do so again. In some ways I already experience this living in a part of the country with a very small Catholic population. We’re cool with it. The Spirit is alive and well! Be Not Afraid!!:getholy:

 

[irishpatrick]

Greetings all! This is a good discussion. May I add my view? What I see happening next is the 9th Circuit upholding Walker’s decision. If it then goes to the SCOTUS one of 2 things will happen. They will refuse to hear it, which is what I’m betting on - I don’t think Roberts has the guts - OR they will hear it and the current makeup of the court will leave the ruling as it stands. So either way we wind up with a ‘follow-up’ to Roe v. Wade. The Church will do what it has to do to be true to itself. It will not fold to the fad of homosexuality. It’s gone underground before, it can do so again. In some ways I already experience this living in a part of the country with a very small Catholic population. We’re cool with it. The Spirit is alive and well! Be Not Afraid!!:getholy:

Thanks for posting.

I agree with your assessment in general. I also agree we should not be afraid because God is in control. However, I believe it is wise to have a clear view of where we are heading, less surprised that way and it might encourage more people to get involved.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I very much doubt the Church is ever going to be forced to marry homosexual if if it chooses not to. What it may be forced to do is recognize homosexuals as legally married much the way it recognizes the legal marriage of a jewish or muslim or protestant heterosexual couple. The conflict will come when a homosexual couple seek marriage counseling from a priest or wish to go on a retreat or encounter —*especially if the retreat or encounter is not held at a church and is being offered to any other couple not married in the eyes of the church. I don’t know if that ever happens at this point or not. Does the church ever have protestants seek to be part of a marriage encounter or the like? This decision, if it stands, will have far more impact on many protestant churches than it will the Catholic Church.

We like to think, and I do this as well, that marriage is an act of the (a) church which is recognized and witnessed by the state when really it’s just as much the opposite and always has been.

 

[wisdomseeker]

In Brasil for instance, the Church does not recognize civil marriage as marriages and the state may not considered the Church marriage is legal marriage under the state civil law.

it work really well.

 

[irishpatrick]

I very much doubt the Church is ever going to be forced to marry homosexual if if it chooses not to. What it may be forced to do is recognize homosexuals as legally married much the way it recognizes the legal marriage of a jewish or muslim or protestant heterosexual couple. The conflict will come when a homosexual couple seek marriage counseling from a priest or wish to go on a retreat or encounter —*especially if the retreat or encounter is not held at a church and is being offered to any other couple not married in the eyes of the church. I don’t know if that ever happens at this point or not. Does the church ever have protestants seek to be part of a marriage encounter or the like? This decision, if it stands, will have far more impact on many protestant churches than it will the Catholic Church.

We like to think, and I do this as well, that marriage is an act of the (a) church which is recognized and witnessed by the state when really it’s just as much the opposite and always has been.

I disagree. Within ten years after the SC affirms the CA ruling, the RCC will be sued because they reject marrying same sex couples. That will eventually lead to the RCC being legally forced to marry gays, and that in turn will force the RCC to make some tough choices.

All one has to do is consider where this topic was 15 years ago and how blazingly fast the laws and the culture has shifted towards acceptance of gay marriage. It really is not a matter of if, rather when. The left has won over the culture with many issues, gay marriage, abortion, living together, divorce, etc.

 

[irishpatrick]

To all,

Thanks for the chat. I am done with this topic. Have a blessed day.