Same-sex marriage and Constitutional rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
In this article

lifesitenews.com/news/states-could-force-catholic-priests-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-or-lose-l

Justice Scalia asks whether same-sex marriage conflicts with religious freedom, in that if same sex-marriage is granted status as a Constitutional right, and Constitutional rights apply to all citizens, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim clergy could be penalized for refusing to officiate at same-sex nuptials.

Is this the bottom line for Justices to consider in their upcoming decision this summer, and how do you think the majority will decide?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
In this article

lifesitenews.com/news/states-could-force-catholic-priests-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-or-lose-l

Justice Scalia asks whether same-sex marriage conflicts with religious freedom, in that if same sex-marriage is granted status as a Constitutional right, and Constitutional rights apply to all citizens, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim clergy could be penalized for refusing to officiate at same-sex nuptials.

Is this the bottom line for Justices to consider in their upcoming decision this summer, and how do you think the majority will decide?
Click to expand...
This actually is the bottom line, as far as the Constitution is concerned. See, the thing is, the Justices aren’t supposed to use anything other than our Constitution (and laws that have been declared Constitutional) to decide the case. They’re not supposed to use “Divine Law” or “Natural Law” (as there are people who don’t believe in these things, and because the Constitution, at its core, is a secular document - God isn’t mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Constitution - the words “Rights endowed by the Creator” is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution).

Regardless, though, it’ll be a 5-4 decision. And there may be two decisions. The first decision determines whether it is a Constitutional right for a person to marry a person of the same sex. This is a true toss-up, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it went either way. If the Justices determine that it is a Constitutional right for a person to marry a person of the same sex, then the second decision is moot - there is no reason for it.

But should the Justices rule that it is NOT a Constitutional right for a person to marry a person of the same sex, then they have to decide whether states have the right to deny marriage rights to same sex couples “married” in another state. And in this case, I suspect that they would state that no, states don’t have this right, provided at least one person in the couple was a resident of the state the couple was “married” in. Why? Because there’s precedent for states being required to recognize marriages from other states (such as common-law marriages) that are not recognized by the state itself.
 
The Constitutional right to bear arms does not compel everyone to own guns, or compel anyone to sell them. The right to drink alcohol, also protected by the Constitution, doesn’t force anyone to drink alcohol, or any business owner to sell it.

Quite apart from that, the right of religions to define marriage for themselves, and decide whom they choose to marry within their churches, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
AyJSimon said:
The Constitutional right to bear arms does not compel everyone to own guns, or compel anyone to sell them. The right to drink alcohol, also protected by the Constitution, doesn’t force anyone to drink alcohol, or any business owner to sell it.

Quite apart from that, the right of religions to define marriage for themselves, and decide whom they choose to marry within their churches, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
Since same-sex marriage is not specifically protected by the Constitution, whereas the right to practice one’s religion is, in which Article of the Constitution would anyone locate the right for same-sex marriage?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Justice Scalia asks whether same-sex marriage conflicts with religious freedom, in that if same sex-marriage is granted status as a Constitutional right, and Constitutional rights apply to all citizens, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim clergy could be penalized for refusing to officiate at same-sex nuptials.

Is this the bottom line for Justices to consider in their upcoming decision this summer, and how do you think the majority will decide?
Click to expand...
No one is talking about forcing churches to preform same-sex marriages, please stop with the whole persecution complex it’s getting old.
Guess what happens to religious institutions to same-sex marriage is legal? Nothing. People are going to be gay, and engage in homosexual relations whether they are married or not, if you think that God defines what marriages is, then you should have no problem with the state defining what it thinks it is. Unless of course you think the state is more powerful than God.
 
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage has been the same since Adam and Eve.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Since same-sex marriage is not specifically protected by the Constitution, whereas the right to practice one’s religion is, in which Article of the Constitution would anyone locate the right for same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...
It’s listed right next to the right to eat waffles.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Since same-sex marriage is not specifically protected by the Constitution, whereas the right to practice one’s religion is, in which Article of the Constitution would anyone locate the right for same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...
Marriage is not a Constitutional issue
Does the Constitution forbid gay marriage?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Does the Constitution allow gay marriage?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
How can that be?
Click to expand...
The answer is actually very simple. …the Constitution does not mention marriage. In fact, the Constitution does not discuss any issues concerning morality.
Click to expand...
Source…
Click to expand...
The Constitutional Issues Go Way Beyond Gay Marriage
The essence of the question before the Supreme Court is not “what is marriage?” but rather “which citizens should be allowed to marry?”
Click to expand...
 
BackHand said:
No one is talking about forcing churches to preform same-sex marriages, please stop with the whole persecution complex it’s getting old.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about that. Justice Scalia is talking about it.

Get your head screwed on right and stop giving me the back of your hand.
 
*"The essence of the question before the Supreme Court is not “what is marriage?” but rather “which citizens should be allowed to marry?” *

That is com parable to saying the issue before the Supreme Court is not whether slavery should exist, but which people should be allowed to be slaves.

You have to define an institution before the institution can have members.

Waffle eating is not an institution. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
*"The essence of the question before the Supreme Court is not “what is marriage?” but rather “which citizens should be allowed to marry?” *

That is com parable to saying the issue before the Supreme Court is not whether slavery should exist, but which people should be allowed to be slaves.

You have to define an institution before the institution can have members.

Waffle eating is not an institution. 🤷
Click to expand...
Gay marriage and slavery are a tad different. Gay marriage refers to a perceived civil right. Slavery refers to a condition in which individuals are owned by others, who control where they live and at what they work.
 
frobert said:
Gay marriage and slavery are a tad different. Gay marriage refers to a perceived civil right. Slavery refers to a condition in which individuals are owned by others, who control where they live and at what they work.
Click to expand...
But both are institutions. 😉

Institutions can be viewed as good or bad.

The demand for either slavery or same-sex marriage is not ipso facto legitimate.
 
In my opinion, Loving v. Virginia is powerful evidence for the constitutional right of marriage, even for same-sex couples. Of course, I’m not a Justice of the court so my opinion doesn’t matter much. I think that for the Court to rule against same-sex marriage would be a very inconsistent ruling.
 
I think this is actually a good thing. It will force more people to realize that the marriage they get in a church is fundamentally different from the marriage they get at a justice of the peace. Catholics already have this distinction at the other end: Secular divorces are not recognized by the Catholic Church; it is a separate process to get a declaration of nullity. You can be annulled but still married civilly, or civilly divorced and while still married according to the church.

If priests are no longer granted the authority to grant civil marriages, we will have the exact same differentiation as divorce at the beginning of marriage.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I’m not talking about that. Justice Scalia is talking about it.

Get your head screwed on right and stop giving me the back of your hand.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with Scalia? Because if you have the same viewpoint as him my response would be very much warranted as I’d be arguing against what you both believe, If you do not share the same beliefs as Scalia and posted this article to bring about debate then Mea Culpa.

How do I screw my head on right? Is it by binge watching Fox news? But the back of my hand is so soft! As soft as a gay man’s voice. 😃
 
Rhubarb said:
In my opinion, Loving v. Virginia is powerful evidence for the constitutional right of marriage, even for same-sex couples. Of course, I’m not a Justice of the court so my opinion doesn’t matter much. I think that for the Court to rule against same-sex marriage would be a very inconsistent ruling.
Click to expand...
If the demand for same-sex marriage is Constitutional, we still need to know why it is a right embedded in the Constitution … which Article? And if it is embedded in the Constitution, why is the right of incestuous marriage also not embedded in the Constitution … and which Article? We are talking about institutions, not waffles. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top