Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not interested in whether I am on the right side of history.

I am interested in whether I am on the right side of eternity.
 
Instead of speculating, why not take the time to say the Rosary? Ask Mother Mary to intercede. Our holy Mother is the most powerful intercessor. We cannot give up hope in the Lord. I am hoping there are at least 5 righteous persons in this country. Today it may take 5 million to equal the 5 in Abraham’s time population wise. But prayer is our duty. We must pray to fulfill our own duty. Pray for God’s mercy not to let this land go under due to the outrageous quantity of grave sins.
 
I’ve changed my mind after listening to the audio and reading the transcripts. This is going to be a sweeping victory for LGBT equality.
 
elsker said:
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.
Click to expand...
The eradication of religion didn’t work in the Soviet Union. All this will fail. States have always tried to eradicate religion but it never worked.
 
We do need to pray the rosary each day, if not more.

It seems now decisions are made on feelings and not on rationality, so they may decide for gay marriage just to appease hurt feelings. People yelling, “you will burn in hell” will only incite more sympathy for gay people.
 
oneofmany said:
It seems now decisions are made on feelings and not on rationality, so they may decide for gay marriage just to appease hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
Most of the questions and the Justice’s own reasoning in these oral arguments are rational. The major exception being that an inordinate amount of time was expended reminiscing on historical “definitions” of marriage. Nostalgia is not a rational argument nor has the court ever held it to be a valid legal one in and of itself.
oneofmany said:
People yelling, “you will burn in hell” will only incite more sympathy for gay people.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a very salient moment as they did discuss how such bans impact the dignity of LGBT people. I’m sure it will stick in their minds as they reflect on those discussions and other extensive discussions regarding whether the motivations behind such bans are, in fact, animus. Particularly since it is clear that the majority of Justices did not believe that the arguments made against equal protection made any logical sense, at the very least in any way that would withstand any kind of review.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Most of the questions and the Justice’s own reasoning in these oral arguments are rational. The major exception being that an inordinate amount of time was expended reminiscing on historical “definitions” of marriage. Nostalgia is not a rational argument.

I thought it was a very salient moment as they did discuss how such bans impact the dignity of LGBT people. I’m sure it will stick in their minds as they reflect on those discussions and other extensive discussions regarding whether the motivations behind such bans are, in fact, animus.
Click to expand...
The way that out burst could effect the justices is that they might feel that there is this overwhelming necessity to be protective over who they would now feel is being threatened by the attitude behind the outburst. One lunatic acting out with those old fundamentalist tropes can validate in the minds of everyone there that,

“Christians are hateful and if allowed to go unchecked will set out to do harm to this class of people therefore we have to use our authority to protect or at least minimize the reach of these fundamentalists.”

Instead of looking at this case in the role they should play as interpreters of the Constitution they might have been jarred enough in that moment to allow emotionality to inform their opinions. And frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that outburst was orchestrated to have that exact effect. When I heard about it my cynical antenna was twanged by how quickly and conveniently that all played out.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
🙂 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)
Click to expand...
This made me giggle and brought a smile to my face. Thank you :o
 
To protect the dignity of marriage and our religious liberty a wise priest mentioned to me that what is needed is to let the secular have their view of marriage – put it in the secular order as well as laws of the state which govern these things but protect our sacramental rights of having marriage as we view it in our faith. Protect our sacraments! Our religious liberty!
That the government is not to interfere with our sacraments of marriage – that there are two views happening — this way our churches, temples etc will be protected from those who willfully say it is their right to use our churches, temples etc for marrying gay couples. Because that is just what they want to do , tell us how to live our religious liberty and force us to let them use our churches etc. WE need the separation of these views which are trying to become laws — secular verses sacramental or religious.
Also my prayer is that the Bishops will stand strong with the other groups who are not of our faith who are courageously frightening this evil-- We must protect our freedom of religion or we will all soon be in a great persecution and are we ready to die for our faith, to go to jail cause that’s what is up the stream ahead of us.
Two views are happening in this debate and may the supreme court see this and give us our religious liberty to not have our sacraments violated.
 
elsker said:
The way that out burst could effect the justices is that they might feel that there is this overwhelming necessity to be protective over who they would now feel is being threatened by the attitude behind the outburst. One lunatic acting out with those old fundamentalist tropes can validate in the minds of everyone there that,
Click to expand...
I doubt disruptive people have any impact on decisions. There have been disruptions for all sorts of cases lately. 3 in the last month from I believe Citizen’s United type protestors. At first they were nice and just had them removed. The 3rd one was looking at jail time.
 
I came across an article on a progressive/liberal article basically asking, “If old people are not denied marriage because they can’t have children, why are gay people being denied?”

How do you prevent forced acceptance of same-sex marriage without resorting to the argument of morality?
 
Divine3 said:
To protect the dignity of marriage and our religious liberty a wise priest mentioned to me that what is needed is to let the secular have their view of marriage – put it in the secular order as well as laws of the state which govern these things but protect our sacramental rights of having marriage as we view it in our faith. Protect our sacraments! Our religious liberty!
That the government is not to interfere with our sacraments of marriage – that there are two views happening — this way our churches, temples etc will be protected from those who willfully say it is their right to use our churches, temples etc for marrying gay couples. Because that is just what they want to do , tell us how to live our religious liberty and force us to let them use our churches etc. WE need the separation of these views which are trying to become laws — secular verses sacramental or religious.
Also my prayer is that the Bishops will stand strong with the other groups who are not of our faith who are courageously frightening this evil-- We must protect our freedom of religion or we will all soon be in a great persecution and are we ready to die for our faith, to go to jail cause that’s what is up the stream ahead of us.
Two views are happening in this debate and may the supreme court see this and give us our religious liberty to not have our sacraments violated.
Click to expand...
Would it be morally permissible to not oppose secular same-sex marriage? Although the marriage would not be recognized by the Church, in every day life (e.g., school, jobs, social functions) the distinction would be basically non-existent; the same terms “husband” and “wife” would be used to refer to their same-sex partners.
 
EIF5A said:
I came across an article on a progressive/liberal article basically asking, “If old people are not denied marriage because they can’t have children, why are gay people being denied?”

How do you prevent forced acceptance of same-sex marriage without resorting to the argument of morality?
Click to expand...
The argument is not that same sex persons can’t have children. The argument is that same sex persons can’t even have conjugal sex. The relationship is in no way conjugal. It is not marital and can never be.

Now, two old people might be incapable of conjugal sex as well. But in many if not most jurisdictions, impotence is grounds for annulment.

Opposite sex persons are suited by nature for marital sex. Same sex persons are not. It can never be a marital union.
 
EIF5A said:
I came across an article on a progressive/liberal article basically asking, “If old people are not denied marriage because they can’t have children, why are gay people being denied?”

How do you prevent forced acceptance of same-sex marriage without resorting to the argument of morality?
Click to expand...
Simple biology: All things being equal, a male/female pair is capable of producing children. A male/male or female/female pair is never capable of producing children.
 
Justice Scalia asked a question which I don’t think was adequately answered. If same sex marriage becomes a constitutional right, not just a matter decided on by the states, then religious bodies may be required—constitutionally—to marry same sex couples, if they wish to retain their ability to perform marriages recognized by the state.

When states approve same sex marriage, they can make religious and ministerial exemptions. If same sex marriage is embedded in the constitution by judicial fiat, there will be no room for such exemptions. I have no doubt that some gay rights organizations will force the issue.
 
JimG said:
The argument is not that same sex persons can’t have children. The argument is that same sex persons can’t even have conjugal sex. The relationship is in no way conjugal. It is not marital and can never be.

Now, two old people might be incapable of conjugal sex as well. But in many if not most jurisdictions, impotence is grounds for annulment.

Opposite sex persons are suited by nature for marital sex. Same sex persons are not. It can never be a marital union.
Click to expand...
Allegedly, the argument is that opposite-sex marriage promotes bearing of children, and same-sex marriage is incapable of producing children.

Has any argument differentiating conjugal relations versus the other kind been made before the Supreme Court?

All of this seems to be circular reasoning. Marriage->Conjugal sex->Marriage
 
Monkey1976 said:
Simple biology: All things being equal, a male/female pair is capable of producing children. A male/male or female/female pair is never capable of producing children.
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t answer the question why old people are allowed to get married but not gays, IF the only argument is the ability to bear children (I’m not saying it is or isn’t…but the liberal side seems to think it’s a glaring error or something).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top