Ruling takes aim at Church

[Cal_Catholic]

Judge’s anti-Prop. 8 decision ‘finds as a fact’ that Pope Benedict’s teachings are harmful to homosexuals

Full article…

 

[ccwebapps]

The United States is not a theocracy. By the same token, Judge Walker should have left out of his ruling any reference to any religion. It looks inevitable that same sex marriages will be permitted, under the established, fair principle that separate is not equal, and there should be a conscience clause attached to this inevitable ruling so that no religious group can be compelled to perform same sex marriages. That’s the way I see it going.

 

[irishpatrick]

I have zero doubt that this will lead to the Church being legally forced to marry gay couples, or close their doors to the public.

 

[JimG]

What struck me is this: “The Prop. 8 ruling cited other passages from the same CDF document, apparently attributing it to the group Catholics for the Common Good.”

If I’m not mistaken, this is the organization of dissenting Catholics which was formed prior to the last presidential election to drum up support for Democratic candidates who favored abortion. Interesting that the judge would get his CDF quotes from them, but not surprising.

It sounds as though the judge wants to make a case that Prop-8 was supported only by Catholics and is therefore suspect. Does the fact that for the past 10,000 years, marriage has always been considered to be only possible between a man and a woman, mean anything to him?

 

[mark_a]

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”?

 

[JimG]

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”?

Since the essential definition of marriage has been destroyed, they undoubtedly will be allowed to marry. No discrimination. And wait for NAMBLA to step in advocating equal rights for adolescents.

 

[irishpatrick]

Since the essential definition of marriage has been destroyed, they undoubtedly will be allowed to marry. No discrimination. And wait for NAMBLA to step in advocating equal rights for adolescents.

The bigger problem will be when the churches are legally forced to marry those “couples” in their churches. You can trust that will happen regardless of what our Constitution says.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The bigger problem will be when the churches are legally forced to marry those “couples” in their churches. You can trust that will happen regardless of what our Constitution says.

Do you think the Church will comply?

I think its more likely that the Church will lose its ability to legally marry a couple. The religious marriage and the civil marriage will become two separate things, like in some countries.

 

[JimG]

I think it’s quite likely the Church will eventually face a variety of civil or criminal penalties due to its refusal to recognize homosexual marriage. Any school funding from the Feds will be gone, and it will face numerous discrimination complaints. Disaffected Catholic homosexuals will request and be denied sacramental marriage, resulting in lawsuits. Catholic adoption agencies will be mandated to place children with homosexual couples. Religious schools which refuse to hire homosexuals to teach children will be subject to penalties. Even religious teaching in Catholic schools which teaches that homosexual practices are wrong will be treated as hate speech.

 

[irishpatrick]

Do you think the Church will comply?

I think its more likely that the Church will lose its ability to legally marry a couple. The religious marriage and the civil marriage will become two separate things, like in some countries.

No. It will not comply. I also think that even if the Church lost its ability to legally marry, that will not be good enough for the left and for some gay couples because the Church will still reject giving them a sacramental marriage…they will sue.

The Church will reach a point where it will have to make a hard decision…essentially go completely private and essentially undeground or join the world and marry whomever wants to be married.

 

[irishpatrick]

I think it’s quite likely the Church will eventually face a variety of civil or criminal penalties due to its refusal to recognize homosexual marriage. Any school funding from the Feds will be gone, and it will face numerous discrimination complaints. Disaffected Catholic homosexuals will request and be denied sacramental marriage, resulting in lawsuits. Catholic adoption agencies will be mandated to place children with homosexual couples. Religious schools which refuse to hire homosexuals to teach children will be subject to penalties. Even religious teaching in Catholic schools which teaches that homosexual practices are wrong will be treated as hate speech.

If things progress as the are going now, than very real persecution will come upon the Church once again.

 

[Adeodatus]

If things progress as the are going now, than very real persecution will come upon the Church once again.

Especially if we just stand around and take it.

 

[irishpatrick]

Especially if we just stand around and take it.

Yes, it sures seems like we are just standing around, or perhaps even worse because many so-called Catholics support all sorts of anti-faith practices.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No. It will not comply. I also think that even if the Church lost its ability to legally marry, that will not be good enough for the left and for some gay couples because the Church will still reject giving them a sacramental marriage…they will sue.

The Church will reach a point where it will have to make a hard decision…essentially go completely private and essentially undeground or join the world and marry whomever wants to be married.

If that was the case, I suspect we would see a situation like China with an “official” catholic church with priests willing to marry homosexuals, and an underground church. I suspect the above-ground church would be larger, unfortunately.

 

[Dale_M]

The bigger problem will be when the churches are legally forced to marry those “couples” in their churches. You can trust that will happen regardless of what our Constitution says.

Would you be willing to explain why you feel this way?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have zero doubt that this will lead to the Church being legally forced to marry gay couples, or close their doors to the public.

no doubt. i remember that case in which a psychiatrist refused to see a gay man and lost his job. civil rights have replaced God in our society. ’

 

[irishpatrick]

Would you be willing to explain why you feel this way?

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.

 

[irishpatrick]

If that was the case, I suspect we would see a situation like China with an “official” catholic church with priests willing to marry homosexuals, and an underground church. I suspect the above-ground church would be larger, unfortunately.

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.”

 

[irishpatrick]

If you want to destroy a nation without having a physical war, just destroy the family and destroy the practice of real Christianity. Those two planks working together helped build the western world, tear them down and you have torn down the west in the process and souls by the billions will be at risk.

 

[Dale_M]

If they were willing to compromise, than Civil Unions that hold the same legals rights as marriage would have been fine.

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:

The Commission is compelled to issue its final report now because of the
overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general
public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.

Since the Commission issued its February 2008 report, a similar commission in
Vermont has issued a report detailing how the Vermont civil union law – in
effect since July 1, 2000 – still does not provide the legal, medical and economic
equality of marriage. Nearly a decade later, civil union couples in Vermont
report the same obstacles to equality that New Jersey civil union couples face
today.

The Commission has also heard additional evidence that a marriage law in New
Jersey would make a significant difference in providing equality and dignity to
same-sex couples and their children. Though federal law fails to recognize samesex
relationships as marriage, the Commission finds that a marriage law in New
Jersey would help to alleviate the disparate treatment of same-sex couples,
including denial of benefits, as testimony to the Commission has shown to be the
case in Massachusetts.

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

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 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.