H
Holly3278
Guest
I honestly believe that the Supreme Court will impose “gay marriage” on the entire nation. 
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
USCCB President Comments On Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments On Marriage
usccb.org/news/2015/15-069.cfm
usccb.org/news/2015/15-069.cfm
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yes, unfortunately, I agree this is the most likely outcome. I personally feel it is best to prepare for it psychologically, legally, emotionally, mentally, etc. Good news is easy to take, right, no need to brace for that.I honestly believe that the Supreme Court will impose “gay marriage” on the entire nation.
It may be a qualified, complex decision that generates more legal challenges as opposed to an outright victory for gay marriage advocates. Or they may just take it all. I have a really really hard time seeing the defenders of traditional marriage walking away with this one. Not realistic at all. Hope for a tie and some breathing room.
H
Holly3278
Guest
To be honest with you, I will be upset with any victory that the “gay rights” movement gets.Yes, unfortunately, I agree this is the most likely outcome. I personally feel it is best to prepare for it psychologically, legally, emotionally, mentally, etc. Good news is easy to take, right, no need to brace for that.
It may be a qualified, complex decision that generates more legal challenges as opposed to an outright victory for gay marriage advocates. Or they may just take it all. I have a really really hard time seeing the defenders of traditional marriage walking away with this one. Not realistic at all. Hope for a tie and some breathing room.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I know, so will I. I think it is a very bad turn for the country, a bad turn for us all. Might be a good idea to arrange for a special day or something, you know? Plan ahead and make your favorite dinner or buy a new outfit or something the day the decision comes out. (And if, by some miracle, it is a good decision…oh well)
B
Burt_Macklin
Guest
Yes I think that the US vs Windsor gives a preview of how the justices will decide this case. I hope that the outcome is that states decide to get out of the marriage business all together rather than issue certificates to same-sex couples.I honestly believe that the Supreme Court will impose “gay marriage” on the entire nation.
M
MJJean
Guest
If all states had to recognize marriages performed elsewhere there wouldn’t be a problem because Alabama would have to recognize a civil marriage existed and then be able to grant a civil divorce.
So would marriage be federal or left to clergy only? If we went to a federal system we’d still have legal civil ssm. If we went to clergy only we’ still have ssm because so many established churches/religions are willingly performing ssm ceremonies.
And we can’t do away with legal marriage altogether. That would be a legal nightmare.
C
CNA_News
Guest
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/i...5_Credit_Addie_Mena_CNA_4_28_15.jpgWashington D.C., Apr 28, 2015 / 03:15 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- U.S. Supreme Court justices asked tough questions of both plaintiffs and respondents at oral arguments on Tuesday in a possibly landmark marriage case that is expected to be decided in June.
"Clearly, the justices were conflicted over this issue,” stated the Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior fellow Ryan Anderson, who attended the April 28 oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
“The first question out of Justice Kennedy was, ‘do you want to throw away a millennia-old definition of marriage for 10 years of same-sex marriage?’ He was asking questions that I think are a good sign. They suggest his mind is not made up."
The justices heard arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, part of four marriage cases concerning the constitutionality of state traditional marriage laws. The court will decide, probably in June, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages under the 14th Amendment, and recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
Supporters of both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage packed the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. to tell the court to rule their way on marriage.
Traditional marriage supporters argued that marriage cannot be redefined and that children should be raised by both a mother and a father. The matter should be left to the people and the states, they added, not decided once and for all by the court when so much disagreement on the matter persists.
Supporters of same-sex marriage said everyone has the right to marry the person they love, and that right cannot wait to be decided by the states but should be recognized immediately by the Supreme Court.
The justices did not reveal a clear consensus toward either side in their questions.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually considered a swing vote between the conservative and liberal justices, acknowledged right away that marriage has been defined for “millennia” as between a man and a woman.
Yet in the same statement he remarked, “it was about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case.”
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark 1954 decision which ruled that state laws allowing racial segregation in schools denied persons equal protection under the law. Loving v. Virginia, 13 years later, overturned Virginia’s interracial marriage ban.
Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 case which overturned Texas’ sodomy law, criminalizing private conduct of same-sex persons as an unconstitutional violation of due process of same-sex couples. Kennedy delivered that ruling.
Kennedy later stated, “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage … it’s dignity bestowing, and [same-sex couples] say that want to have that – that same ennoblement.” He also questioned whether opposition to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds was “sufficient.”
John Bursch, who represented the states, maintained that “the state’s entire interest springs out of the face that we want to forever link children with their biological mom and dad when that’s possible.”
The justices peppered Mary Bonauto, arguing for the petitioners in the case, with questions about the long-standing recognization of marriage as between a man and a woman. Justice Stephen Breyer acknowledged that the traditional definition of marriage “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years.”
He continued, “suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to … change what marriage is to include gay people.”
“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” he concluded.
Chief Justice John Roberts echoed the point that the democratic process could decide the issue better than the courts.
“If you prevail here,” he told Bonauto, “there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”
Both Justices Scalia and Alito pressed Bonauto and U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verilli, who also argued for the plaintiffs, on religious liberty concerns if a constitutional right to marriage was recognized by the court.
Verilli did later admit that “it’s certainly going to be an issue” for colleges who oppose same-sex marriage to keep their tax-exempt status if the court ruled in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The justices also questioned the argument against same-sex marriage, asking how allowing marriage benefits to same-sex couples would take away from married opposite-sex couples.
Marriage rights have also been granted in the past to persons who did not enjoy the right before, such as interracial couples or prisoners, noted Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor.
Ryan Anderson highlighted the judges’ asking hard questions of both sides as more evidence that the court should not decide the issue, but leave it to the democratic process and the states.
feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/x2sNscQHX8M
Full article…
"Clearly, the justices were conflicted over this issue,” stated the Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior fellow Ryan Anderson, who attended the April 28 oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
“The first question out of Justice Kennedy was, ‘do you want to throw away a millennia-old definition of marriage for 10 years of same-sex marriage?’ He was asking questions that I think are a good sign. They suggest his mind is not made up."
The justices heard arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, part of four marriage cases concerning the constitutionality of state traditional marriage laws. The court will decide, probably in June, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages under the 14th Amendment, and recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
Supporters of both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage packed the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. to tell the court to rule their way on marriage.
Traditional marriage supporters argued that marriage cannot be redefined and that children should be raised by both a mother and a father. The matter should be left to the people and the states, they added, not decided once and for all by the court when so much disagreement on the matter persists.
Supporters of same-sex marriage said everyone has the right to marry the person they love, and that right cannot wait to be decided by the states but should be recognized immediately by the Supreme Court.
The justices did not reveal a clear consensus toward either side in their questions.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually considered a swing vote between the conservative and liberal justices, acknowledged right away that marriage has been defined for “millennia” as between a man and a woman.
Yet in the same statement he remarked, “it was about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case.”
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark 1954 decision which ruled that state laws allowing racial segregation in schools denied persons equal protection under the law. Loving v. Virginia, 13 years later, overturned Virginia’s interracial marriage ban.
Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 case which overturned Texas’ sodomy law, criminalizing private conduct of same-sex persons as an unconstitutional violation of due process of same-sex couples. Kennedy delivered that ruling.
Kennedy later stated, “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage … it’s dignity bestowing, and [same-sex couples] say that want to have that – that same ennoblement.” He also questioned whether opposition to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds was “sufficient.”
John Bursch, who represented the states, maintained that “the state’s entire interest springs out of the face that we want to forever link children with their biological mom and dad when that’s possible.”
The justices peppered Mary Bonauto, arguing for the petitioners in the case, with questions about the long-standing recognization of marriage as between a man and a woman. Justice Stephen Breyer acknowledged that the traditional definition of marriage “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years.”
He continued, “suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to … change what marriage is to include gay people.”
“Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” he concluded.
Chief Justice John Roberts echoed the point that the democratic process could decide the issue better than the courts.
“If you prevail here,” he told Bonauto, “there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”
Both Justices Scalia and Alito pressed Bonauto and U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verilli, who also argued for the plaintiffs, on religious liberty concerns if a constitutional right to marriage was recognized by the court.
Verilli did later admit that “it’s certainly going to be an issue” for colleges who oppose same-sex marriage to keep their tax-exempt status if the court ruled in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The justices also questioned the argument against same-sex marriage, asking how allowing marriage benefits to same-sex couples would take away from married opposite-sex couples.
Marriage rights have also been granted in the past to persons who did not enjoy the right before, such as interracial couples or prisoners, noted Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor.
Ryan Anderson highlighted the judges’ asking hard questions of both sides as more evidence that the court should not decide the issue, but leave it to the democratic process and the states.
feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/catholicnewsagency/dailynews?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/catholicnewsagency/dailynews/~4/x2sNscQHX8M
Full article…
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
This is an interesting exchange:
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/417597/obamas-lawyer-religious-institutions-may-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-court-rules-gay
The impact of a decision for gay marriage could be very far-reaching, much more so than we realize.
Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/417597/obamas-lawyer-religious-institutions-may-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-court-rules-gay
J
JimG
Guest
I wouldn’t pin any hopes on the Court. Courts have not and will not be our friend. Courts are the problem, having arrogated to themselves judicial supremacy rather than accepting their status as a co-equal branch among three co-equal branches.
“We need to stop trying to convince federal judges that same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea. They won’t be convinced because federal judges represent enlightened elite opinion and the enlightened elites have already decided that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Rather, we must start trying to convince the American people that federal judges never had the constitutional authority to decide whether same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea in the first place.”
The Real Culprit is Our Outlaw Judiciary
“We need to stop trying to convince federal judges that same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea. They won’t be convinced because federal judges represent enlightened elite opinion and the enlightened elites have already decided that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Rather, we must start trying to convince the American people that federal judges never had the constitutional authority to decide whether same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea in the first place.”
The Real Culprit is Our Outlaw Judiciary
E
elsker
Guest
I have always had a feeling that this is the first step of many that will be undertaken for the sole purpose of eradicating religion of any kind in the united states. Once a door like this is opened its not going to be a huge leap for SCOTUS to change the definition of other things. If one area can be redefined so can others. I think a vulnerable, desperate group had their cause hijacked by those who would prefer a godless america.
If you look deeply into the ssm argument it becomes apparent that marriage is seen as purely a religious construct that some see as the heart of belief. Undermine marriage and the theory goes that religion will rapidly crumble and be easier to dismantle through legal challenges.
Hope our priests are prepared to make house calls-just saying.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
This case is incredibly difficult to call, but if I had to make a prediction then I would lean by a micron towards that outcome also.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I agree that same sex marriage is only a proximate end to the ultimate end of destroying religion and making the idea of “religious liberty” irrelevant and inapplicable.
At the same time, when it comes to same sex marriage, I have never seen religion as the primary opponent of those proposing it. Religion did not invent marriage. Marriage arose out of human nature as male and female. The deeper attack is not on religion; it’s on human nature itself. We see increasingly an intent to disregard human nature, no matter the consequences. It’s not just that only man and woman can form a conjugal relationship. That’s a matter of biology. It’s that many refuse even to accept human biology. They don’t care how they are made. They want to do what they will to do, human nature be damned.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yes, I agree that many Americans are underestimating the far-reaching impact of a decision for gay marriage, how restricting it will be to a lot of people. The Church will definitely take a major hit. It is frightening and very unAmerican. This is not to say that the Church will die out, but it will suffer I think more and more, on a real, everyday level. I predict there will be a backlash against this kind of oppression though. Another one of those “opportunities to learn.”
All very sad.
E
elsker
Guest
Even if I can never receive a sacrament again, I will forever be a Christian. If things come to things, I’m praying that people of faith won’t cut and run or worse yet adopt the :“If we can’t beat them-join them.” philosophy.Yes, I agree that many Americans are underestimating the far-reaching impact of a decision for gay marriage, how restricting it will be to a lot of people. The Church will definitely take a major hit. It is frightening and very unAmerican. This is not to say that the Church will die out, but it will suffer I think more and more, on a real, everyday level. I predict there will be a backlash against this kind of oppression though. Another one of those “opportunities to learn.”
Irregardless we people of faith can never use even threat of grave persecution as a reason to turn our backs on God. It saddens me to see people I know saying: “I used to be a Catholic.” Yes, its very difficult to be in but not of the world but we have no choice but to do God’s will. No one who understands what salvation means can ever give in to what threatens salvation-no matter how easy it makes their earthly life.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Do you ever watch EWTN? I saw an interview with this Eastern European priest who was practicing in South America (can’t remember more details than that, sorry). But he had these really great, inspiring comments about what it was like to go to Mass in Eastern Europe when it was underground and illegal, what it meant, how people just did makeshift altars in houses, barns, whatever was safe and available to the locals. He noted that “Christians” in the West take their faith for granted; they don’t understand what a privilege it is to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist and to profess and practice their faith openly.
I think serious Christians in the US could face this kind of a test in the not too distant future. (Do I really care enough to fight for and persevere in my faith?) I agree with your comment that your faith is internal; it is not external. In that sense, it is never really in too much danger, from oppression anyway. In fact, I think it often grows much stronger and healthier when challenged.
E
elsker
Guest
I watch EWTN all the time. It can be a bit controversial sometimes so I watch with caution. It is a valuable resource nonetheless and has brought many people to the faith.
My brother in law spent a number of years living in a communist country as a catholic and has often spoken about believers being murdered when an underground church is raided by the government. He grew up keeping his faith hidden and says that only when we have our rights to believe and worship openly taken from us will we be able to appreciate what it is to be a catholic. He hopes this martyrdom never comes to america but he also said that if we do nothing to stop the abuses of liberty happening here we will deserve to have our right to our faith taken from us.
I pray everyday that this does not happen here but I’m also ready to endure what I have to for love of God and our church.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
In all likelihood gay “marriage” will be a constitutional “right” if the West’s trajectory is any indication. Ministers will indeed be coerced under penalty to comply with the State’s doctrine. The State won’t even let a baker not participate in a gay marriage. There’s no reason to think they, in concert with gay lobbyists, will not use this to coerce ministers. A few brave business owners have already heroically incurred white martyrdom. I expect the Church will see many in the near future, such as with Bishop Cordileone. That witness is going to be powerful even if the Church has to abandon having cooperation with State recognized marriage. There’s much more that can be said, including the ripple effect this court decision will have on the public’s view of gender gifts and institutional definitions.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/?postshare=761430251588940
Check out this interview Fr Jonathan Morris did on Fox Business during the Indiana RFRA controversy. He discussed the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church:
video.foxbusiness.com/v/4142782389001/religious-freedom-protected-after-change-in-indiana-law/?playlist_id=937116503001#sp=show-clips
washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/?postshare=761430251588940
Check out this interview Fr Jonathan Morris did on Fox Business during the Indiana RFRA controversy. He discussed the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church:
video.foxbusiness.com/v/4142782389001/religious-freedom-protected-after-change-in-indiana-law/?playlist_id=937116503001#sp=show-clips
E
estesbob
Guest
I think that will be the outcome also.
- Status