A
ATraveller
Guest
Wrong thread?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
ATraveller
Guest
I don’t know what the Magisterium has to say on this but assuming that Catholics are compelled to make it illegal, how will it happen? To pass legislation you need to get it through the legislature.
In the Netherlands, there are Christian parties (one of them is a “fundamentalist” party) that are opposed to gay “marriage” but such legislation wouldn’t make it through because the majority of the country are socially liberal and their proportional representation system reflects that.
Last edited:
A
ATraveller
Guest
A visual of what you had to deal with:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
There have been a handful, but they’re uncommon.
In fact, the gay marriage ruling reversed prior SC caselaw allowing criminalization of sodomy.
Plessey v. Fergusson has been reversed, and others.
The court is very caution before doing so, however.
Another example would be changing the right to counsel from a negative right (a defendant couldn’t be denied his right to bring counsel) to a positive right (an affirmative right to have counsel appointed.)
There are others as well.
Look to Justice Thomas’ concurrences (and his dissents, as well). They have been adopted by the court majority in later cases.
(For that matter, when you see Thomas dissenting alone in an 8-1 decision, it usually means that you just lost a civil right or protection. Most were 7-2 with Scalia, but Scalia’s knee jerked right when police safety was involved . . .)
Oliver Wendell Holmes was known as “the Great Dissenter”, as his dissents often carried the day in a later case. Thomas may be the “Great Concurrer” . . .
And as far as Roe goes, it’s dying a death of a thousand cuts at the moment. As much as I’d like to wake up in the morning and find life protected from conception to death, it’s not going to happen. At least not tomorrow.
However, there is ongoing support for increasingly tighter restrictions on abortin, and as each is reached, there is support for the next step.
In all seriousness, “heartbeat laws” may be the most serious threat to the success of pro-life progress: at the moment, they get struck down, and seem extreme to non-activists who don’t agree with them. But since they don’t work, each one is a missed chance to impose restrictions that would stand up.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The person who said that was speaking for themselves and was wrong.
P
phil19034
Guest
J
JimG
Guest
Same sex marriage laws affect everyone’s marriage, because they make non-marriage equal to actual marriage and put them both in the same box using the same terminology for both. No surprise though, since in some places women can be called men and men can be called women. Reality is not the strong suit in such jurisprudence.
J
JSRG
Guest
Nitpick time!
That said, Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v. New York is probably the most famous dissent in Supreme Court history. (ironically, Harlan–the first one–wrote a separate dissent from Holmes in that case, but his is not anywhere near as famous)
Actually, the caselaw allowing criminalization of sodomy was reversed over a decade beforehand in Lawrence v. Texas.
It was actually John Marshall Harlan that was known as the Great Dissenter, not Holmes. Actually, there were two people with the name of John Marshall Harlan in the Supreme Court, the second being the grandson of the first, and I believe both received that moniker.
That said, Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v. New York is probably the most famous dissent in Supreme Court history. (ironically, Harlan–the first one–wrote a separate dissent from Holmes in that case, but his is not anywhere near as famous)
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
The point being the fact that the USSC does overrule its own precedent, not the particular order.
That seems to vary by law school professor . . .
F
Freddy
Guest
If enough people start to ask for it then we have a sensible discussion about it.Johann_du_Toit:
That is a good point. If Roman Catholic politicians go along with SS marriage, then why not go along with polygamy? I am assuming that the polygamous relationship is completely voluntary and consensual on the part of those involved.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think he was as well. But me (and you) simply saying ‘you’re wrong’ is just a matter of opinion. I want to show that it’s wrong by showing that there are no reasons behind making such a statement.Freddy:
The person who said that was speaking for themselves and was wrong.
If someone wants to deny ssm then it’s incumbent upon that person to offer more than fallacious reasons. And I’ve yet to hear anything other than variations of ‘it’s not what marriage is meant to be’.
F
Freddy
Guest
That’s a two way street, Buff. Unless you have good reasons against it then you will be ignored as well.phil19034:
You can ignore it and not acknowledge this fallacy.
But it does seem odd that people who claim it has such a negative impact on them directly could say ‘Hey, let’s simply ignore it’. It seems that your suggestion implies it’s of no real consequence.
You are simply describing ssm. Now you need to tell us how it affects your marriage. Did you wake up the morning after it was made legal and realised your marriage was different in some way? I didn’t. My marriage is exactly the same. As far as I know, nobody I know has been negatively affected by it either.
What happened to your marriage that didn’t happen to mine?
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
When the issue came before the Supreme Court, there was a split of opinion; the majority wanted to deem homosexual unions as marriage, and the minority would either have prefered to leave the situation as it was (which included some States acknowledging marriage-like rights and responsibilities such as inheritance and other related spousal-tyupe matters, such as health issues) or would have preferred to call them civil unions, thus bringing some consistencies in state laws.
Stare decisis is not an absolute rule of law but in most circumstances is followed. That makes it highly unlikely that the case law establishing a legal right to marry extends to same sex couples.
Antonin Scalia foresaw the conflict this created, but could not convince enough of the judges to either address the 1st Amendment issue, or to provide some means of indicating that the 1st Amendment still was in force.
As I have not made a point of following any subsequent Court decisions, There is still mischief afoot in some quarters.
The baker (who was not Catholic) in Colorado fought to the Supreme Court and was vindicated, but the Court in that case did not treat it as a 1st Amendment case, but rather treated it as a “workproduct of an artist”, which was a weasel way to avoid confronting the isse which Scalia predictied. Last I heard, Colorado said (something exceedinly impolite) and went after that baker again, and last I heard it was on appeal in a federal court.
The baker was not the only one to face the issue of discrimination. There was a woman florist who had a repeat client (man) for whom she had made numerous flower arrangements. He was getting married, and she also out of religious convictions did not want to make an arrangment for the wedding, and he brought a case against her also.
There may have been other cases; again I am not tracking.
And even if this is a rare matter, it is clear that if an individual who has a business which can be related to weddings (e.g. photographers, bakers, florists to name a few), their religious choice to not be involved may result in a Pyrrhic victory as they face the power of the State and the costs of litigating any actions taken against them. Lawsuits can be notoriously expensive even if you win.
As to the moral side for a Catholic, I have not researched it but would suspect that it (providing whatever for the wedding) would be considered too remote to indicate many immorality on the part of the business person.
As an aside, this is not limited to the United States; the Knights of Columbus received a request, I believe in British Columbia from a gay couple wanting to rent their hall; I think ultimately they won - but the point is that this is not a US phenomenon.
O
otjm
Guest
As to the title of the thread, the United States is not a theocracy nor does the Constitution provide for such, and it is a moot question. As the Deacon noted, no one would get elected to office to even begin any such project, and under the Constitution, would be imposing Catholicism on the jurisdiction.
P
Polak
Guest
Really? I know quite a few gay and non gay people who are extremely offended by people saying marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. They are also very offended and angered by gay sexual relations being called sinful.
Do you have a source/stat for your claim that most gays are accepting of the Catholic belief?
F
Freddy
Guest
I have to admit I’m not offended by most of what Catholics believe. If they want to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman then fine. But I am offended if they want their beliefs to apply to me or to society in general. Just like I don’t mind people denying evolution or claiming the earth is flat but will do anything to stop that being taught in schools.signit:
Really? I know quite a few gay and non gay people who are extremely offended by people saying marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman. They are also very offended and angered by gay sexual relations being called sinful.
Do you have a source/stat for your claim that most gays are accepting of the Catholic belief?
P
Polak
Guest
Ah, you touched on an interesting point here. It seems you don’t mind people believing things unless they try to push it on the rest of society as a norm. Your example of not having any issue with people not believing in evolution as long as they don’t try to stop it from being taught at schools is significant. Would you feel the same way about gay marriage? Are you okay with Catholics being against gay marriage, so long as they don’t try to prevent if from being taught in schools as the norm?
Also on another general note, I have have noticed a lot of people responding to the thread suggesting that the question is pointless because overturning gay marriage wouldn’t be viable due to the current climate, or that it’s very difficult to de-legalise something once it has been made legal.
Remember, my question isn’t about the practicalities of something, but about moral responsibility.
If the Catholic president of a country has paperwork for a new law placed in front of him, that would make gay marriages legal, should he sign it, even if the majority of the country isn’t Catholic and is for this law being passed?
W
whatistrue
Guest
Really? So how about a recap for us slow ones?
W
whatistrue
Guest
What part don’t you think is true? You may be right, but I can’t say because I don’t know what you are objecting to. And the point about Church and Civil marriages being different is exactly what I have been saying all along. The Church can define marriage whatever way it wants from the Church perspective, but the State has the same power in its sphere of influence.
F
Freddy
Guest
My last answer was about gay marriage. I have no problem in people believing it’s wrong. Whatever religion they are or if they have no religious beliefs. I don’t want people complaining about my beliefs so I won’t complain about theirs. But if they want their beliefs to apply to me then I will argue against them. Likewise they can argue against mine if I want my beliefs to apply to them. Seems like a good system to me. The ones with the best argument wins.Freddy:
Ah, you touched on an interesting point here. It seems you don’t mind people believing things unless they try to push it on the rest of society as a norm. Your example of not having any issue with people not believing in evolution as long as they don’t try to stop it from being taught at schools is significant. Would you feel the same way about gay marriage? Are you okay with Catholics being against gay marriage, so long as they don’t try to prevent if from being taught in schools as the norm?
Also on another general note, I have have noticed a lot of people responding to the thread suggesting that the question is pointless because overturning gay marriage wouldn’t be viable due to the current climate, or that it’s very difficult to de-legalise something once it has been made legal.
But I have zero interest in any argument that says it’s morally wrong. Something that’s morally wrong causes harm and gay marriage causes no harm. You may disagree but that’s as far as we’d get. My guess is that your argument would be based on religious grounds. I would automatically discount them just as you would discount specifically Muslim or Hindu arguments.
And I’m a believer in the separation of church and state. So the president, being of the state, cannot make decisions based on the teachings of any given church. So he signs the documents.
- Status