Same Sex Marriage and the constitution

[Bakmoon]

Right, right, I understand that. But there is a severe risk of abuse using this approach. It’s become sort of game: twist the words of the text (and extrapolate precident to an unsupported degree) to serve the prevailing mood of the intellectual class…whatever the spirit of the age happens to be. There were unwritten constraints or rules on the judicary, but these have been completely breached, most eggregiously with Roe vs Wade. Now it seems, it simply depends what the politcal beliefs of the judge are (political beliefs that often to appear to have been formed early in life). The judge, often, appears to fit the facts to suit some sort of prejudgement that is driven by a poltiical worldview, not the law…the law is mere cover to serve an agenda.

This kind of cherry picking is actually very hard to do when precedent is valued very highly because precedent addresses so many issues that if you try to pinch the law to make it look like something that it isn’t, someone else will find a precedent that will contradict your interpretation, and because precedent is binding, your interpretation will get blown out of the water. If you weaken precedent, however, then you have much more wiggle room because if someone finds a precedent that contradicts your pet theory, you can just try to discredit that precedent.

Also, weakening precedent means that the various persuasive authorities have to become even more persuasive to fill in for the lack of authority that had previously been held by precedent. The problem with this is that these persuasive authorities are much more diverse and expansive than case law is, and come from many more sources, so you can cherry pick it all to get exactly what you want much more easily than you can with court cases, which gives the courts even more ability to make the law say what they want it to say rather than what it actually does say.

 

[trapper1]

And where exactly in the constitution does it say this?

Where does it say it isn’t related to procreation? Where does it mention marriage at all?

Sheesh.

 

[trapper1]

The supreme court says it is in the constitution. Along with things like right of interracial couples to marry and the right of minority children to attend public schools with every one else

“And where exactly in the constitution does it say this?”

I’m trying to reconcile these two statements. Having trouble.

 

[fastenatingguy]

The supreme court says it is in the constitution. Along with things like right of interracial couples to marry and the right of minority children to attend public schools with every one else

I accept that, but don’t agree with their decision.

Hypothetical: If sometime in the future, a case is brought up and they overturn the current ruling, would you agree with them and say it isn’t in the Constitution?

 

[helpme94]

Thanks for your responses. The reason I ask this is because I have some secular friends who are deeply interested in politics. They think everyone should have equal rights for everything, moral or not. Are there any arguments that I can pose on why gay marriage should be banned without discussing the morality of it? They believe everyone should be able to do whatever makes them happy that doesnt hurt someone else so the non productivity argument of a gay couple holds no water with them. Thanks! didntexpect this much discussion. glad to see that!

 

[helpme94]

But they can have a civil union…and they do so all over the USA.
Are you from another country?

They cannot get a civil union in every state, several here lately have stated legalizing it. That is the heart of the debate. Is it ok to oppose gay marriage in the church but support it politically because that is what our country was founded on. I am just a young catholic who will vote and need some guidance on this issue. I dont want to be a hypocrite or a bigot and deny people there legal right to a civil union but want to standup for the values of the church. I want to practice what I beloeve but dont want to deny others what they believe, moral or not. Is this wrong of me?

 

[Bakmoon]

But they can have a civil union…and they do so all over the USA.
Are you from another country?

The vast majority of states in the USA ban both same sex civil unions and same sex marriage.

 

[Corki]

They cannot get a civil union in every state, several here lately have stated legalizing it. That is the heart of the debate. Is it ok to oppose gay marriage in the church but support it politically because that is what our country was founded on. I am just a young catholic who will vote and need some guidance on this issue. I dont want to be a hypocrite or a bigot and deny people there legal right to a civil union but want to standup for the values of the church. I want to practice what I beloeve but dont want to deny others what they believe, moral or not. Is this wrong of me?

The premise of the bolded statement is faulty. Our country was not founded on any principle having anything to do with same-sex marriage or civil unions.

But “no” it is not ok to oppose it in the Church but support it politically.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage,** clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.** One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Where same sex ‘marriage’ and civil unions are legal in the U.S:

ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx

To the OP, the poster Corki provided you the best and correct answer to your question as a Catholic. As you know, the forum is open to non-Catholic membership and Catholics who do not follow the teaching of the faith, and they would not be appropriate sources of advice on what would be right by your faith. A Catholic remains one in political and social life. It is not a garment that one takes off when he or she steps out of the Church.
,

 

[I_am_Sent]

And I’ve heard this argument before. They use one to play off the other. They want children to ‘validate’ their marriages, but they aren’t likely to be able to adopt if they aren’t married - they are using one to play off of the other, but neither holds their ground independently.

we face one of the battles for the world ever to be fought and gay rights have no say in the outcome of that battle. We are facing the end times and it is a very serious situation. Much like the ostrich who stuffs his head in a hole in order to avoid the oncoming attack we to wanted put our heads in the whole thinking that we are going to be safe and nothing could be further from the truth, you cannot hide from God and if you check the law of God you will find that he does not approve of gay he and lesbian behavior and certainly God does not protect individuals of same-sex relationships. As a matter of fact, God destroyed the two cities in Scripture one for all males and one for all women who turned their back on God to do their own thing. They were destroyed and is much as I know you do not want to hear this truth so will you be destroyed. Stuffing your head in the hole of the sand will never validate for God because God gets disgusted when you turn against him by converting your cool operation with him by helping him in his creation of the world which has never stopped. You are so busy trying to justify yourself to other people of God that you cannot accept this absolute truth that what you do to satisfy yourself is not approved by God. You can try all you want to justify yourself but you will find yourself in a very unpleasant place for a very long time.

 

[Mumbles140]

we face one of the battles for the world ever to be fought and gay rights have no say in the outcome of that battle. We are facing the end times and it is a very serious situation. Much like the ostrich who stuffs his head in a hole in order to avoid the oncoming attack we to wanted put our heads in the whole thinking that we are going to be safe and nothing could be further from the truth, you cannot hide from God and if you check the law of God you will find that he does not approve of gay he and lesbian behavior and certainly God does not protect individuals of same-sex relationships. As a matter of fact, God destroyed the two cities in Scripture one for all males and one for all women who turned their back on God to do their own thing. They were destroyed and is much as I know you do not want to hear this truth so will you be destroyed. Stuffing your head in the hole of the sand will never validate for God because God gets disgusted when you turn against him by converting your cool operation with him by helping him in his creation of the world which has never stopped. You are so busy trying to justify yourself to other people of God that you cannot accept this absolute truth that what you do to satisfy yourself is not approved by God. You can try all you want to justify yourself but you will find yourself in a very unpleasant place for a very long time.

I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The post you quoted me on related to gay couples using the adoption argument as a means to get married, but are also arguing for the right to marry so gay couples can adopt - as was pointed out by another poster, I am aware that individual gays can adopt, but I think it is harder for umarried gay couples to adopt.

I do not support gay marriage as I do not believe such a thing exists - marriage is an institution of God, and has very specific purposes, one of which is procreation. I don’t need to go into the reasons, but I do not know why you are railing against me, because I am defending the truth about love and marriage given to us by God.

 

[trapper1]

I do know that the Romans didn’t consider homosexual marriage to be the same as marriage. But it wasn’t specifically outlawed until Christian laws filtered into the Empire.

The practice—homosexual “marriage”—doesn’t appear to have had any legal recognition at all…it appears to have been a purely private practice.

 

[djames99]

Our beliefs form the template for decisions we make civilly. If the globe were to decide civilly against our beliefs, then the default goes to our beliefs always. A person would be conscientiously objecting in a such a case. Many martyrs have met their end because they would not bow to decisions of the world. Such is only one reason every individual should absolutely ally himself with the True Church in their belief.

One of the duties of the true Church is to teach individuals and nations. Every Catholic is a representative setting the example and even going against the grain if need be.

BTW: It is not a marriage if it is not approved by God. If we are to attempt to be precise
in it’s definition, then because the practice is born of the unholy, we are left with defining it as a cult ritual presided by the prince of this world.

…

MATER ET MAGISTRA

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS

Venerable Brethren and Dearest Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Mother and Teacher of all nations—such is the Catholic Church in the mind of her Founder, Jesus Christ; to hold the world in an embrace of love, that men, in every age, should find in her their own completeness in a higher order of living, and their ultimate salvation. She is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1) To her was entrusted by her holy Founder the twofold task of giving life to her children and of teaching them and guiding them—both as individuals and as nations—with maternal care. Great is their dignity, a dignity which she has always guarded most zealously and held in the highest esteem.

 

[livingwordunity]

Our beliefs form the template for decisions we make civilly. If the globe were to decide civilly against our beliefs, then the default goes to our beliefs always. A person would be conscientiously objecting in a such a case. Many martyrs have met their end because they would not bow to decisions of the world. Such is only one reason every individual should absolutely ally himself with the True Church in their belief.

One of the duties of the true Church is to teach individuals and nations. Every Catholic is a representative setting the example and even going against the grain if need be.

BTW: It is not a marriage if it is not approved by God. If we are to attempt to be precise
in it’s definition, then because the practice is born of the unholy, we are left with defining it as a cult ritual presided by the prince of this world.

…

MATER ET MAGISTRA

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII
ON CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS

Venerable Brethren and Dearest Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Mother and Teacher of all nations—such is the Catholic Church in the mind of her Founder, Jesus Christ; to hold the world in an embrace of love, that men, in every age, should find in her their own completeness in a higher order of living, and their ultimate salvation. She is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1) To her was entrusted by her holy Founder the twofold task of giving life to her children and of teaching them and guiding them—both as individuals and as nations—with maternal care. Great is their dignity, a dignity which she has always guarded most zealously and held in the highest esteem.

I agree. So-called “same-sex marriage” is a doctrine of demons.