Same Sex Marriage and SCOTUS

[ThatsNoBueno]

(Edited)

I’m sure anyone who is reading this post is a good person of a descent moral character. However, unless you’ve actually known someone close to you that is LGBT or you yourself is LGBT, it would be probably, most likely, greatly difficult for you to understand the great significance of such a great achievement and milestone of the SCOTUS. I’m a Catholic, and I applaud this decision by the highest court of the Nation. Don’t take away my self identity as a Catholic, because that is something you can’t ever take away from anybody, identify. A person can’t take away identity from another person. Call me a “Cafeteria Catholic” if you must. This is the right thing. This is the moral thing. There is a clear separation of Church and State enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation of Church and State must be strongly upheld. There are virtually no secular arguments against same sex marriage (as far as I know), except for religious ones. Religious arguments can’t be used in a court of law. That’s how things are, as it should. This has nothing to do with religion. This is a completely civil matter in its very essence. The Church needs to stay out of government affairs, because as we can see all throughout history, the corruption of the Church is aligned with its strong relationship with the government such as in more contempary cases in Ireland and Latin America. Jesuit priest, James Martin and CNN Religious Commentator, Edward Beck both posted positive comments on social media regarding the LGBT community. We may disagree about same sex marriage and the like, but as civil humans and fellow Christians, it’s important for us to respect and love each other. Christ said to love one another and do unto to others as you would want them to do unto you. As a Christian, it disheartens me to see nothing but hate and prejudice against the LGBT community by my fellow Christians. This is not Christian. There is no evil here. The only evil here is violating the civil rights of people in a democratic society. This is not Christian. You may say that you “love” the LGBT community, but y’all don’t act like it. Love and kindness is Christian, but I certainly don’t see that from many Christians. The decision regarding same sex marriage by the SCOTUS does not and will not change Church policy and doctrine. The official beliefs of the Church regarding same sex marriage remains intact and does not redefine the definition or sacramentality of marriage within the Church. The Church is free to believe and practice as they please. This decision is a matter of civil liberties for all residents of the United States. Religious rights are not being violated by this decision. The State is not violating your right to practice and believe in your respective faith. The State can not and will not force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies against their will. In fact, that is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has not changed. The legality of civil same sex marriage is the only thing that has changed. The State is not attempting to define that nature of marriage itself, the State is merely giving individuals of the same sex to participate in civil marriage which of course is separate from religious marriage. The only rights being violated here are prohibiting people the right to choose the lifestyle they see as fit whether you agree with it or not. Peace and love. Bless you all my fellow Christians.

 

[cjforJesus]

(Edited)

I’m sure anyone who is reading this post is a good person of a descent moral character. However, unless you’ve actually known someone close to you that is LGBT or you yourself is LGBT, it would be probably, most likely, greatly difficult for you to understand the great significance of such a great achievement and milestone of the SCOTUS. I’m a Catholic, and I applaud this decision by the highest court of the Nation. Don’t take away my self identity as a Catholic, because that is something you can’t ever take away from anybody, identify. A person can’t take away identity from another person. Call me a “Cafeteria Catholic” if you must. This is the right thing. This is the moral thing. There is a clear separation of Church and State enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation of Church and State must be strongly upheld. There are virtually no secular arguments against same sex marriage (as far as I know), except for religious ones. Religious arguments can’t be used in a court of law. That’s how things are, as it should. This has nothing to do with religion. This is a completely civil matter in its very essence. The Church needs to stay out of government affairs, because as we can see all throughout history, the corruption of the Church is aligned with its strong relationship with the government such as in more contempary cases in Ireland and Latin America. Jesuit priest, James Martin and CNN Religious Commentator, Edward Beck both posted positive comments on social media regarding the LGBT community. We may disagree about same sex marriage and the like, but as civil humans and fellow Christians, it’s important for us to respect and love each other. Christ said to love one another and do unto to others as you would want them to do unto you. As a Christian, it disheartens me to see nothing but hate and prejudice against the LGBT community by my fellow Christians. This is not Christian. There is no evil here. The only evil here is violating the civil rights of people in a democratic society. This is not Christian. You may say that you “love” the LGBT community, but y’all don’t act like it. Love and kindness is Christian, but I certainly don’t see that from many Christians. The decision regarding same sex marriage by the SCOTUS does not and will not change Church policy and doctrine. The official beliefs of the Church regarding same sex marriage remains intact and does not redefine the definition or sacramentality of marriage within the Church. The Church is free to believe and practice as they please. This decision is a matter of civil liberties for all residents of the United States. Religious rights are not being violated by this decision. The State is not violating your right to practice and believe in your respective faith. The State can not and will not force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies against their will. In fact, that is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has not changed. The legality of civil same sex marriage is the only thing that has changed. The State is not attempting to define that nature of marriage itself, the State is merely giving individuals of the same sex to participate in civil marriage which of course is separate from religious marriage. The only rights being violated here are prohibiting people the right to choose the lifestyle they see as fit whether you agree with it or not. Peace and love. Bless you all my fellow Christians.

Yes the supreme court did redefine marriage and did so without a vote. Religious marriage and secular marriage are basically the same in the eyes of the state. It is the legal benefits that keeps the state interested in defining an institution of society. Even Pope Francis in “On Heaven and Earth” say it is the arthropologigal definition they are concerned with because the state only sees what is for the greater good. A civil union varies very little from a sacramental one in the eyes of the state.They are both recognized but legally it seems now that people may have to get both legal and sacramental marriage.

42 years ago the highest court in the land ruled it is OK for women to have their children murdered before they are born because they do not hold the legal status of “person” yet. In 2005 the highest court refused to intervene when a Catholic woman was being euthanised by her husband even though her family wished to take custody and care for her. Yeah most see her life as worthless and just taking up resources others more healthy and productive could use.
It is all about what is in the best interest of the state.

Many now are petitioning for the removal of the dead donor rule so that comatose people can donate their organs to others who could benefit more.To remove the legal definition and make it simply a matter of choice. It would greatly increase the donor pool and cause great financial benefit for the state.

Every law is for the benefit of the collective whole and for the progression and evolution of society.This is the belief of the state.

 

[wild_thing]

It’s all fun and games until you are comforting Jesus before the Blessed Sacrament because of this decision.

 

[Petersmate]

I have a son and daughter with SSA. I find it appalling that someone can include them In the same catagory as serious conditions like bi sexual and transgendeer (LGBT).

I have a great concern for the souls of my children and I believe that the Bride of Christ has the answer to their salvation. Anything that puts their souls at risk is diabolical.

 

[john_ennis]

If you spend a little time listening to the thoughts of many Catholics on this, you’ll see that your judgment of hatred is unfair. How can you propose to know what’s in people’s hearts?

The Church’s teaching is not suggestive of hatred, even if you disagree with it.

I would add that many of us are close to people who have same-sex attraction, including many who live the homosexual lifestyle. We sincerely believe that it is not a loving attitude to say that this is right.

Do you really not see how one can have no hatred, and still believe that?

Further, your characterization of the question as a strictly legal one, which doesn’t change Church teaching…of course the second part is true, but many of us recognize the harm that comes from societal/legal decisions which are false and harmful. Various norms and laws which relate to marriage and family, have resulted in the epidemic of poor kids with no fathers, just for one example.

Over eighty percent of prisoners didn’t have two parents. Do you not see that we do have an interest in legal decisions?

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

Yes the supreme court did redefine marriage and did so without a vote. Religious marriage and secular marriage are basically the same in the eyes of the state. It is the legal benefits that keeps the state interested in defining an institution of society. Even Pope Francis in “On Heaven and Earth” say it is the arthropologigal definition they are concerned with because the state only sees what is for the greater good. A civil union varies very little from a sacramental one in the eyes of the state.They are both recognized but legally it seems now that people may have to get both legal and sacramental marriage.

42 years ago the highest court in the land ruled it is OK for women to have their children murdered before they are born because they do not hold the legal status of “person” yet. In 2005 the highest court refused to intervene when a Catholic woman was being euthanised by her husband even though her family wished to take custody and care for her. Yeah most see her life as worthless and just taking up resources others more healthy and productive could use.
It is all about what is in the best interest of the state.

Many now are petitioning for the removal of the dead donor rule so that comatose people can donate their organs to others who could benefit more.To remove the legal definition and make it simply a matter of choice. It would greatly increase the donor pool and cause great financial benefit for the state.

Every law is for the benefit of the collective whole and for the progression and evolution of society.This is the belief of the state.

Okay, thank you for your response. The State gives permission and allows for religious institutions to conduct civil marriage ceremonies alongside religious marriage ceremonies. So, a clergy member conducting a marriage ceremony, is performing both a sacramental act under the authority of the Church, and a civil act under the authority of the State. The Supreme Court is not attempting to redefine marriage in any sense. That is not the intention or job of the Supreme Court. All this decision does is grant the right for individuals of the same sex to be civily married under civil law. Yes, you’re right, a democratic free society must ensure the greater good of the majority, and the minority. This is a great example of this. I just believe in a strong separation of Church and State as a 90s born young person. The Church is still very important to me, but I believe they should stay away from politics unless it has to do with the helpless and the needy, such as with support for undocumented immigrants. Anyways, those are my thoughts.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… I just believe in a strong separation of Church and State …

There is no such thing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(Edited)

I’m sure anyone who is reading this post is a good person of a descent moral character. However, unless you’ve actually known someone close to you that is LGBT or you yourself is LGBT, it would be probably, most likely, greatly difficult for you to understand the great significance of such a great achievement and milestone of the SCOTUS. I’m a Catholic, and I applaud this decision by the highest court of the Nation…[Snip for length]…

Yes, we must love all people and we must be compassionate to the suffering. Clearly, many people today suffer from sexual disorientation. But to support their unnatural life style is a great sin, a mortal sin - to be blunt. No Catholic can offer encouragement for the sinful actions of others or to make excuses for them. No Catholic can support a law which is contrary to Catholic Faith or Morality. The Scotus decision is just as evil as the Roe vs Wade decision and other sinful decisions of the Supreme Court. Catholics who support such decisions have set themselves outside the commuion of the faithful and may not receive the sacraments without true repentance and confession.

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/cdf-i…exual-persons/

As Pope Saint John Paul ll points out, Catholics are charged with the moral duty to vigorously oppose such sinful laws.

Linus2nd

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

If you spend a little time listening to the thoughts of many Catholics on this, you’ll see that your judgment of hatred is unfair. How can you propose to know what’s in people’s hearts?

The Church’s teaching is not suggestive of hatred, even if you disagree with it.

I would add that many of us are close to people who have same-sex attraction, including many who live the homosexual lifestyle. We sincerely believe that it is not a loving attitude to say that this is right.

Do you really not see how one can have no hatred, and still believe that?

Further, your characterization of the question as a strictly legal one, which doesn’t change Church teaching…of course the second part is true, but many of us recognize the harm that comes from societal/legal decisions which are false and harmful. Various norms and laws which relate to marriage and family, have resulted in the epidemic of poor kids with no fathers, just for one example.

Over eighty percent of prisoners didn’t have two parents. Do you not see that we do have an interest in legal decisions?

Hello, thank you for your response and your personal thoughts. The Catholics in my own life and who I have spoken to all agree with my thoughts. Let me give you an example, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, an Irish-Catholic, has stood up for LGBT rights in the Massachusetts Legislature prior to being mayor of Boston. It’s a pretty well known fact that priests took him aside and told him he did the right thing when he was one of the State Legislatures who voted to make it legal to have same sex marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yes, there were times when priests called him out during Mass, but it’s also true there were also priests who supported his decision.

It’s also a bit of an urban myth to say that people without two parents turn out to be bad. I totally agree that a two parent household with one mother and one father is a good thing, a great thing. I don’t disagree with that. I also agree that single parent households can be a contributing factor, if not a major factor on the well being and lives of children. However, that is not always the case. There are many individuals who came from single parent households and turned out to be great and amazing human beings. The negative traits of people who come from single parent households more has to do with the characters of the parents themselves, and not necessarily the fact they came from single parent households. Yes, I agree single parenting is a big and major issue. But, I’m still of the opinion that people turning out to be criminals and “hoodlums” more has to do with the characters of those around them and not the fact they were in a single parent household.

Thank you for this positive and thoughtful discourse.

 

[Durnford]

(Edited)

I’m sure anyone who is reading this post is a good person of a descent moral character. However, unless you’ve actually known someone close to you that is LGBT or you yourself is LGBT, it would be probably, most likely, greatly difficult for you to understand the great significance of such a great achievement and milestone of the SCOTUS. I’m a Catholic, and I applaud this decision by the highest court of the Nation. Don’t take away my self identity as a Catholic, because that is something you can’t ever take away from anybody, identify. A person can’t take away identity from another person. Call me a “Cafeteria Catholic” if you must. This is the right thing. This is the moral thing. There is a clear separation of Church and State enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation of Church and State must be strongly upheld. There are virtually no secular arguments against same sex marriage (as far as I know), except for religious ones. Religious arguments can’t be used in a court of law. That’s how things are, as it should. This has nothing to do with religion. This is a completely civil matter in its very essence. The Church needs to stay out of government affairs, because as we can see all throughout history, the corruption of the Church is aligned with its strong relationship with the government such as in more contempary cases in Ireland and Latin America. Jesuit priest, James Martin and CNN Religious Commentator, Edward Beck both posted positive comments on social media regarding the LGBT community. We may disagree about same sex marriage and the like, but as civil humans and fellow Christians, it’s important for us to respect and love each other. Christ said to love one another and do unto to others as you would want them to do unto you. As a Christian, it disheartens me to see nothing but hate and prejudice against the LGBT community by my fellow Christians. This is not Christian. There is no evil here. The only evil here is violating the civil rights of people in a democratic society. This is not Christian. You may say that you “love” the LGBT community, but y’all don’t act like it. Love and kindness is Christian, but I certainly don’t see that from many Christians. The decision regarding same sex marriage by the SCOTUS does not and will not change Church policy and doctrine. The official beliefs of the Church regarding same sex marriage remains intact and does not redefine the definition or sacramentality of marriage within the Church. The Church is free to believe and practice as they please. This decision is a matter of civil liberties for all residents of the United States. Religious rights are not being violated by this decision. The State is not violating your right to practice and believe in your respective faith. The State can not and will not force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies against their will. In fact, that is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has not changed. The legality of civil same sex marriage is the only thing that has changed. The State is not attempting to define that nature of marriage itself, the State is merely giving individuals of the same sex to participate in civil marriage which of course is separate from religious marriage. The only rights being violated here are prohibiting people the right to choose the lifestyle they see as fit whether you agree with it or not. Peace and love. Bless you all my fellow Christians.

If you really believe this then I don’t think you really understand the teachings of the Church and are as you say a buffet Catholic.

 

[Polycarp1]

In short, the bottom line and our mission as Catholics is to get as many people into heaven as possible. As such we should oppose any behavior whether considered by people as religious practice or state practice that interfere with that goal. The condoning of and making legal any behaviors that lead people away from God’s eternal will for them is wrong and disastrous regardless of what any man-made court may decree. Man’s law can never over ride God’s without the inevitable consequences.

We are all sinners and hating another of God’s creations is not an option for Christians, but loving our neighbors does not mean that we should or can condone sinful behavior so that we can avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Do we standby and say nothing while someone ventures out on to thin ice without calling out to them? Actually standing by and doing nothing would be a sin against loving our neighbor.
Love the sinner…hate the sin.

Its strange how the separation of Church and State only seems to object to the Church interfering with the State’s authority but not the State interfering with the Church’s.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… This is a completely civil matter in its very essence.

Then explain what the public purpose for marriage is.

The Church needs to stay out of government affairs, …

Negative. The church is the conscience of government. Would you prefer to be governed by those who fear eternal damnation, or by those who do not?

… Religious rights are not being violated by this decision. The State is not violating your right to practice and believe in your respective faith. The State can not and will not force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies against their will.

How old did you say you are?

… The only rights being violated here are prohibiting people the right to choose the lifestyle they see as fit whether you agree with it or not. …

People cannot “choose whatever lifestyle they see fit”. The ante-Bellum South had a lifestyle that they fought a bitter war to preserve and Northerners took an exception to. The mafia has a lifestyle that most consider unlawful. I think you are going to have to modify that statement.

In the meantime, I ask you to consider these four videos. Each one is about 15 minutes:

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?
v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?
v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related

 

[exnihilo]

What I truly can’t understand is why people who are for SSM think this is a good decision. This decision completely disenfranchised huge swaths of this country. They couldn’t win at the ballot box but they won at the hands of five judges. They had to pass an amendment to outlaw slavery and give women the vote. The power the courts assumed are a death to constitutional government.
ThatsNoBueno;13097954:

It’s also a bit of an urban myth to say that people without two parents turn out to be bad.

Urban myth? My parents were divorced. I was deprived of a natural family. There is no myth to the fact that my sisters and I suffered greatly as a result of not having a true and complete family.

The ante-Bellum South had a lifestyle that they fought a bitter war to preserve and Northerners took an exception to.

I don’t want to drag the conversation off topic and there is plenty of this discussion elsewhere on this forum now. But the war was fought, by the Union, to prevent the South from being independent. The South wanted to go its own way. The Union would not let them. The Union did not fight to end slavery. The Union had slave states and permitted slavery until the 13th amendment was ratified after the conclusion of the war with the vote of former Confederate States. Lincoln made clear in his many statements that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

[Book_Worm]

Then explain what the public purpose for marriage is.

Negative. The church is the conscience of government.

Which church?

And who gets to decide which church?

 

[unstoppable_II]

Which church?

And who gets to decide which church?

The same “church” as in “separation of ‘church’ and state.”

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
I don’t want to drag the conversation off topic and there is plenty of this discussion elsewhere on this forum now. But the war was fought, by the Union, to prevent the South from being independent. The South wanted to go its own way. The Union would not let them. The Union did not fight to end slavery. The Union had slave states and permitted slavery until the 13th amendment was ratified after the conclusion of the war with the vote of former Confederate States. Lincoln made clear in his many statements that he had no intention of ending slavery.

The South still had its lifestyle, though.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which church?

And who gets to decide which church?

I‘m okay with “all of them” provided they can make a strong case. What I am not okay with is shutting some or all of them up merely because they are church(es.) That is not only unreasonable, it is downright stupid because it is an egregious instantiation of the genetic fallacy.

Not only that, but it is prejudice at its worse, because it prejudges what any member of any church has to say before they are even heard.

 

[ialsop]

Which church?

And who gets to decide which church?

Guys. Yknow the OP is right…

Dont get me wrong! I went to Blessed Sacrament in reparation for this. And I wept at my ex friends BACKLASH of mockery against my faith after this. And I suspect martyrdom by this government and the nations collapse will happen in my lifetime.

But she is right that the Constitution spells out separation of Church and State.

HOWEVER Church teaching does NOT and separation is abhorrent to me. At this decision by the court, I and all of us must make a decision ourselves.

Te Church and the State have been separated, and WERE separated every since the Founding. Yeah, the founders were “Christians” and mentioned God sometimes, but lets be real, the USA was founded as a secular state.

SO we as Catholics must make a decision. Church…or state.

The OP has made their decision-State over Church.

Well I have made my decision! Church over state. I can no longer claim loyalty to a country that does not claim loyalty to my Church. Call me a radical, fine. if you disagree, fine! But stop pretending.
The OP is being more logical than most here. It is time to choose. I am SICK of the rhetoric “Oh we need to get back the founding fathers, Christian nation, blah blah blah”. Im done with America.
Catholics CANNOT allow Church and state to be separated. But that is PRECISELY what America was founded on.
Time to face that fact, if you havent already realized that with RoevWade…

 

[Jeanne_S]

Maybe the gov’t should stay out of the business of marriage.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I‘m okay with “all of them” provided they can make a strong case. What I am not okay with is shutting some or all of them up merely because they are church(es.) That is not only unreasonable, it is downright stupid because it is an egregious instantiation of the genetic fallacy.

Not only that, but it is prejudice at its worse, because it prejudges what any member of any church has to say before they are even heard.

Agreed 100%. It’s been said that the church proposes, and government disposes. The problem a lot of folks have is they take a proposition and extrapolate to an inquisition instead of taking it as a proposition.