Of course the Court Justices must follow the US Constitution i am not saying they shouldn’t but as a Catholic you must follow Church Teaching. Also if there is a Muslim Court Justice then i don’t see anything wrong with them following their faiths teaching provided that they stay within the Constitution.
The fact is Justice Kennedy and any other Catholic Justice must stay inline with Church Teaching like Chief Justice Roberts did and this applies in all Church Teachings. That means on other rulings they make for example on the death penalty or on medical care must be within Church Teaching.
I’d be careful how you word that. It almost seems to imply a theocracy. Human law isn’t based on Church teaching. In an ideal world, it’s based on natural law. Now, again, in an ideal world, those would be one in the same, as Church teaching, too, is based on natural law.
But, again, a justice is duty bound to uphold the law, not uphold what he or she wishes the law to be.
It’s vital that we, and the rest of society, understand that opposition to same-sex marriage is NOT based on anything Jesus said or didn’t say, it’s NOT based on anything the Scriptures say or don’t say, and it’s NOT based on anything the Church teaches or doesn’t teach. Same-sex marriage isn’t wrong because the Church says so. Rather, the Church says so because it’s wrong.
I get the logic that elected officials have to “uphold Church teaching,” but I think that this mentality has, in large part, led us to where we’re at. Here’s how the argument typically goes.
Premise 1: My faith tells me I’m supposed to be opposed to same-sex marriage.
Premise 2: But, others don’t share my faith.
Premise 3: And I can’t impose my faith on others.
Conclusion: Therefore, I must support same-sex marriage even though my faith tells me it is wrong.
What’s the problem with the argument? Most well-meaning Catholics, I think, want to attack Premise 2 or 3. We might say that others SHOULD share our faith…the old line, “Error has no rights.” (The height of arrogance, I might add, but not pertinent to the overall point.) Or, we might say that since our faith is the fullness of truth that we SHOULD impose it on others. Again, quite arrogant.
Rather, the weakness of the argument is Premise 1. Yes, our faith DOES tell us that we are to oppose same-sex marriage, but NOT because of our faith. Rather, our faith affirms that which we already know by reason. And this is what natural law is–nothing more than the ability to use our brains. I think this is the error that Kennedy makes. You and he both start with the same first premise. But, he comes to the conclusion that he can’t impose that faith on others.
So, what’s the solution? Try this argument:
Premise 1: Men and women have demonstrable differences within their respective reproductive systems.
Premise 2: The reproductive differences only makes sense in light of the other sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, due to this sexual difference, marriage ought to be between one man and one woman.
It’s stronger and doesn’t get into the messiness of a theocratic imposition of moral law.
And notice, it’s based, really, on the parts the distinguish us as male and female, not whether or not those respective parts work. Because if we base the argument solely on the ability to reproduce, the other side is quite right to challenge us on cases of couples who are past the fertile age, a man who has had his testicles removed due to testicular cancer, a woman who has had her ovaries removed due to ovarian cancer, etc.
In other words, it’s not about the ability to reproduce, it’s about what parts you have down below. It’s sad that we even have to articulate this, but we really are at a point where we have to spell it out for people that men have penises, and women have vaginas. Apart from each other, they make no sense, but in light of each other, they make total sense.
Neither do I. But reading thru this thread and CAF, many sure don’t seem to.