Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

[Divine3]

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.

We as Christians, Jews etc will never recognize what does not exist. The problem is if this passes without protecting our religious liberty to protect our sacraments or our right to marry only a man and a woman, then in time they will come and demand to be married in our sacred places, this is why we need right away to separate the issues to protect our religious rights or it will be too late and are we ready to go to jail? Are we or will we cave in like the bishops did and laity did (except for the holy martyrs and others,) as in the time of King Henry the 8th, it was about marriage too!

 

[Divine3]

We as Christians, Jews etc will never recognize what does not exist. The problem is if this passes without protecting our religious liberty to protect our sacraments or our right to marry only a man and a woman, then in time they will come and demand to be married in our sacred places, this is why we need right away to separate the issues to protect our religious rights or it will be too late and are we ready to go to jail? Are we or will we cave in like the bishops did and laity did (except for the holy martyrs and others,) as in the time of King Henry the 8th, it was about marriage too!

 

[JimG]

Maybe a better question should be whether or not persons with homosexual attraction ought to be considered minorities?

I’m left-handed. In that regard, I am in the minority. Presently, my status as a left-handed person is not constitutionally recognized. Presently, sexual orientation isn’t recognized. Should both statuses be constitutionally recognized? If one and not the other, why? Trust me, I’ve got plenty of things I’d change in this right-handed dominated society of ours if I could do so.

“Do I even need to point out how discriminatory America is against the left-handed? So many products and services are based on the assumption that everyone is right-handed. A whole category of millions, through no fault of their own, is ignored and treated as second-class citizens. They were born that way, and a just society would accommodate southpaws’ needs on an equal footing with the right-handed majority!”

A lot of discrimination going on. Even the Miss America Pageant discriminates against males. And some single sex-schools discriminate an entire other sex.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

“Do I even need to point out how discriminatory America is against the left-handed? So many products and services are based on the assumption that everyone is right-handed. A whole category of millions, through no fault of their own, is ignored and treated as second-class citizens. They were born that way, and a just society would accommodate southpaws’ needs on an equal footing with the right-handed majority!”

A lot of discrimination going on. Even the Miss America Pageant discriminates against males. And some single sex-schools discriminate an entire other sex.

That discrimination happens is not unconstitutional in-and-of itself. Discrimination without a justification that survives, at minimum, rational basis review is unconstitutional.

 

[JimG]

Court May Deny Religious Liberty of Catholic Schools

 

[Divine3]

Court May Deny Religious Liberty of Catholic Schools

Another reality if we do not fight this ugly reality happening in the supreme court? Pray and fast but there must be more we can do too? Even though praying and fasting can change hearts!

 

[Dawnia]

Which leads back to equal protection as a gender discrimination issue with the same problem for opponents of same-sex marriage.

Well, we can at least agree that the discussions around the full faith and credit clause, which was really almost all of the Respondent’s time, were very interesting. I particularly found Justice Ginsburg’s rhetorical question (or comment) very meaningful:

“It is - it is odd, isn’t it, that a divorce does become the decree for the nation? A divorce with proper jurisdiction in one State must be recognized by every other State, but not the act of marriage. Interesting.”

That we can agree on. There were many good points. I thought both lawyers did well in answering the questions. I think the judges were having fun messing with the one lawyer over his answer that a state could deny to recognize all marriages from another state. I got a giggle out of that exchange.

 

[elsker]

I’m sitting here thinking about the amount of hatred being thrown our way be persons who feel that children are akin to something you can just buy in a store like our phones, tv, cars and so on. Using the excuse that the biological drive to procreate demands the creation of children by any means and that marriage need be redefined to give children a family is such a heart breaking argument .

There are different types of heterosexual marriage in this world (religiously, ethnically, or valid or invalid in the RCC’s determination) and children reside in all of those types but in none of those marriages are children created as an act of defiance, and as a symbol with which to attempt to “validate” a particular way of life in the eyes of heterosexuals and governments who are tasked with trying to figure out how to interpret the Constitution in regards to this way of life.

This attitude is what crushes my heart. I never set out to have children. I understood that in a marriage that was to include “the coming together” of me and my spouse that children would result if it is God’s will. To reject this fact is to not be truly married. To set out to create life in an attempt to manipulate a spouse, a society (reproductive coercion, divorce and bitter custody battles, demanding sons and rejecting daughters by treating them as less) is also wrong as it misuses the marital gifts and the children themselves in a way that disgraces the marriage, takes dignity away from the children and makes it nothing to do with love but everything to do with the out of control sense of entitlement some people possess. Even heteros misuse and abuse the gifts of marriage in regards to children.

Its such a delicate balance that God sets this upon when he asks us to use our gifts with the utmost care and respect. The reason for marriage was so that it would be easier to manage the responsibility that comes with out sexuality and procreative gifts. Marriage was not designed so that we can put labels on certain aspects of our lives or appear to be better or holier than others around us. Marriage was for the responsible use of int*rcourse as the way to strengthen the bond of man and woman and as a place where children are given to us by God through the action of man and woman coming together in a way that can’t be duplicated in any other circumstance.

If people really understood what the TRUE nature of marriage is and the reason for it’s existence we would be in so much awe and fear we wouldn’t dare, disregard it, diminish it or attempt to undermine it’s nature. We would approach the wedding altar the way we approach the eucharistic table; with fear and trembling feeling humbled and in disbelief that God loves men and women so much that he gave us this sacrament.

 

[JimG]

I’m sitting here thinking about the amount of hatred being thrown our way be persons who feel that children are akin to something you can just buy in a store like our phones, tv, cars and so on. Using the excuse that the biological drive to procreate demands the creation of children by any means and that marriage need be redefined to give children a family is such a heart breaking argument .

There are different types of heterosexual marriage in this world (religiously, ethnically, or valid or invalid in the RCC’s determination) and children reside in all of those types but in none of those marriages are children created as an act of defiance, and as a symbol with which to attempt to “validate” a particular way of life in the eyes of heterosexuals and governments who are tasked with trying to figure out how to interpret the Constitution in regards to this way of life.

This attitude is what crushes my heart. I never set out to have children. I understood that in a marriage that was to include “the coming together” of me and my spouse that children would result if it is God’s will. To reject this fact is to not be truly married. To set out to create life in an attempt to manipulate a spouse, a society (reproductive coercion, divorce and bitter custody battles, demanding sons and rejecting daughters by treating them as less) is also wrong as it misuses the marital gifts and the children themselves in a way that disgraces the marriage, takes dignity away from the children and makes it nothing to do with love but everything to do with the out of control sense of entitlement some people possess. Even heteros misuse and abuse the gifts of marriage in regards to children.

Its such a delicate balance that God sets this upon when he asks us to use our gifts with the utmost care and respect. The reason for marriage was so that it would be easier to manage the responsibility that comes with out sexuality and procreative gifts. Marriage was not designed so that we can put labels on certain aspects of our lives or appear to be better or holier than others around us. Marriage was for the responsible use of int*rcourse as the way to strengthen the bond of man and woman and as a place where children are given to us by God through the action of man and woman coming together in a way that can’t be duplicated in any other circumstance.

If people really understood what the TRUE nature of marriage is and the reason for it’s existence we would be in so much awe and fear we wouldn’t dare, disregard it, diminish it or attempt to undermine it’s nature. We would approach the wedding altar the way we approach the eucharistic table; with fear and trembling feeling humbled and in disbelief that God loves men and women so much that he gave us this sacrament.

AMEN to this.

 

[EIF5A]

I’m sitting here thinking about the amount of hatred being thrown our way be persons who feel that children are akin to something you can just buy in a store like our phones, tv, cars and so on.

No one thinks this. BTW, what are your thoughts on adoption? You can literally pick and choose who you want.

And it’s not hatred for the sake of hatred. It’s the inability to understand why their actions are deemed morally wrong when they want a life partner and a family to love. It’s the inability to understand why divorce/remarriage/multiple ex-spouses are prevalent but all of a sudden, when gays want to get married, the sanctity of marriage is suddenly the hot topic and the alleged cause of moral decay. It’s the inability to understand why their love is not deemed good and acceptable when emotional bonding just as strong as heterosexual mutual affection is present.

You’re speaking Greek. They’re speaking Russian.

 

[elsker]

No one thinks this. BTW, what are your thoughts on adoption? You can literally pick and choose who you want.

And it’s not hatred for the sake of hatred. It’s the inability to understand why their actions are deemed morally wrong when they want a life partner and a family to love. It’s the inability to understand why divorce/remarriage/multiple ex-spouses are prevalent but all of a sudden, when gays want to get married, the sanctity of marriage is suddenly the hot topic and the alleged cause of moral decay. It’s the inability to understand why their love is not deemed good and acceptable when emotional bonding just as strong as heterosexual mutual affection is present.

You’re speaking Greek. They’re speaking Russian.

Adoption is also something I have done in 2008. We were asked to adopt the baby of a teenager who said she was planning to have an abortion but knew that we didn’t believe in abortion and asked if we were interested in adopting. She had a fling with a co worker at her job and didn’t want a child and was not in love with the father. The baby’s father is in contact with us and wants to know his child but says he will let that happen later on. We are supportive of this relationship.

In a perfect world these two kids should have been married and not just messing around but that wasn’t the case. Adoption saves lives and gives young women an alternative to abortion. My hope is that our child’s mother will come around someday and want her child to know her but so far she has made no move that way. We didn’t hide the adoption from our now 6 yr old and we try to answer their questions as completely as we can.

The heartbreaking thing was the mom’s unwillingness to even want to look at her baby after they were born. We asked her repeatedly if she wanted to spend some time with the baby, she said no and checked out of the hospital and walk away. I was wondering if she felt like a surrogate and thought it would be easier to detach herself emotionally. We certainly didn’t treat her like a surrogate and pray that she will want to know the child who’s life she saved.

 

[incense]

It’s the inability to understand why their love is not deemed good and acceptable when emotional bonding just as strong as heterosexual mutual affection is present.

Is this really the issue?

I don’t believe there’s a large desire for homosexual couples to get married. Yeah, there’s a few, but read what they are saying themselves, it’s not a part of their lifestyle. Monogamy is not a part of their lifestyle. The few who do want to get married are convenient tools for the militant homosexual agenda.

If they establish gay marriage as a right, they have a huge weapon to undermine the Christian churches. Everyone will be silenced from criticizing homosexuality. Churches and schools will lose tax exempt status. They’ll file civil rights complaints against anyone who gets in their way. No people/businesses will not have the resources to fight the case and will settle. It doesn’t matter if you’re in the right if you don’t have the money to fight the battle. Lawyers are only supplied for criminal cases, not civil cases.

But that’s still the means and not the purpose.

Religion is the biggest obstacle in accomplishing what they want, but what is it that the militant homosexuals want? This is only a guess, but looking at history, (Greeks, Sodom and Gomorrah) it would appear to be a civilization that can force sex with whoever they want at any age in whatever manner they want.

Look at the big picture and not just the steps to get there.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“…the essential protection against arbitrary laws is that the majority has to live under the same laws that they would subject the minority to.”

That is what equal protection means. What proponents of same-sex marriage argue is that the State(s) have not, do not, and will not apply in practice the same justifications for denying entry into or recognition of marriage of the minority (same-sex couples) to the majority (opposite-sex couples).That is a violation of equal protection.

I see. This is not so much directed at you, but I think that argument is full of holes, for one, because the “majority” doesn’t say they are able to marry a same-sex person while denying the “minority” so there is no unequal treatment by definition. If there is unequal treatment, it will be the court certifying a patently religious doctrine (i.e. that same-gendered people can marry) vs. the natural familial doctrine, that man+woman=child=family is the obvious societal block, known as a marriage.

Perhaps more significantly, time will vindicate all the people who say this is really a movement toward anti-Christian discrimination. It’s already happened. Sit back and watch the predictions unfold. And the pro gay “marriage” crowd will rejoice both silently and quite openly at every occasion of anti-Christian discrimination. It’s already happened. And will happen more.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What are your thoughts on adoption?

Adoption differs significantly from laboratory in vitro as long as we recognize adoption seeks to correct an evil of some kind (i.e. the child’s parents died or perhaps broke up or abandoned, etc) and place that child in as close a situation as is naturally proper as possible—with a mom and dad.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It’s the inability to understand why divorce/remarriage/multiple ex-spouses are prevalent but all of a sudden, when gays want to get married, the sanctity of marriage is suddenly the hot topic and the alleged cause of moral decay.

This is false. When divorce and concubines and abortion and contraception were the hot topics of the day, the Church was very vocally opposed to all those things. Going back to the 19th century even with divorce you can read Pope Leo XIII’s Arcanum. In the 1960s, Pope Paul VI obviously caused a stir opposing contraception and abortion. Etc… Today the attack on what marriage is comes in the form of gay “marriage.” And here are pro-marriage, pro-family voices once again. There is no “suddenly” about it. The Church and others have always been very vocal against all opposition to marriage and family. Tomorrow it will be something else, like cloning, and we’ll be here.

 

[SeannyM]

Is this really the issue?

I don’t believe there’s a large desire for homosexual couples to get married. Yeah, there’s a few, but read what they are saying themselves, it’s not a part of their lifestyle. Monogamy is not a part of their lifestyle. The few who do want to get married are convenient tools for the militant homosexual agenda.

If they establish gay marriage as a right, they have a huge weapon to undermine the Christian churches. Everyone will be silenced from criticizing homosexuality. Churches and schools will lose tax exempt status. They’ll file civil rights complaints against anyone who gets in their way. No people/businesses will not have the resources to fight the case and will settle. It doesn’t matter if you’re in the right if you don’t have the money to fight the battle. Lawyers are only supplied for criminal cases, not civil cases.

But that’s still the means and not the purpose.

Religion is the biggest obstacle in accomplishing what they want, but what is it that the militant homosexuals want? This is only a guess, but looking at history, (Greeks, Sodom and Gomorrah) it would appear to be a civilization that can force sex with whoever they want at any age in whatever manner they want.

Look at the big picture and not just the steps to get there.

How can you possibly claim to know what we want? This entire post is disgustingly hateful and plain wrong. First, there is a very strong desire amongst many gays to marry for the same reasons straight people want to marry. Secondly, there is no gay “lifestyle,” the gay community is just as diverse as the rest of society. Thirdly, many of us are religious, so religion is not an obstacle for us, our biggest obstacle is those who would have us live in a theocracy of their making, with no respect for the religious freedom of others who don’t believe the same as them. And lastly, it is deeply hateful and hurtful to imply that an entire group of people are driven by an urge to rape at will… Which is what you seem to state in your last paragraph there.

 

[cena]

This is false. When divorce and concubines and abortion and contraception were the hot topics of the day, the Church was very vocally opposed to all those things. Going back to the 19th century even with divorce you can read Pope Leo XIII’s Arcanum. In the 1960s, Pope Paul VI obviously caused a stir opposing contraception and abortion. Etc… Today the attack on what marriage is comes in the form of gay “marriage.” And here are pro-marriage, pro-family voices once again. There is no “suddenly” about it. The Church and others have always been very vocal against all opposition to marriage and family. Tomorrow it will be something else, like cloning, and we’ll be here.

 

[estesbob]

I see. This is not so much directed at you, but I think that argument is full of holes, for one, because the “majority” doesn’t say they are able to marry a same-sex person while denying the “minority” so there is no unequal treatment by definition. If there is unequal treatment, it will be the court certifying a patently religious doctrine (i.e. that same-gendered people can marry) vs. the natural familial doctrine, that man+woman=child=family is the obvious societal block, known as a marriage.

Perhaps more significantly, time will vindicate all the people who say this is really a movement toward anti-Christian discrimination. It’s already happened. Sit back and watch the predictions unfold. And the pro gay “marriage” crowd will rejoice both silently and quite openly at every occasion of anti-Christian discrimination. It’s already happened. And will happen more.

It’s pretty easy to determine what they want since they use us every time they don’t get it

 

[Monkey1976]

That is an interesting point: No religion - or non-religious philosophical system - disputes the validity of a male/female marriage. Claiming that two males or two females can be “married” is something supported by only a few religions or non-religious philosophical systems. If the laws force recognition of such pairings as “marriages”, how is that not a promotion of certain religions/philosophical systems above others?

 

[gilliam]

Here are some numbers for you all to discuss:

It is estimated that there are approximately 9,083,558 people in the US who identify as ‘LGBT’ (about 3.8% of the 238,574,670 total US adult population.)

There are approximately 726,600 ‘LGBT’ households consisting of approximately 16% of those who identify as ‘LGBT.’ With approximately 35% of these households considering themselves married. These are divided pretty evenly between male-male and female-female households.

There are approximately 55,607,113 opposite sex couples in the US. Approximately 47% of the US adult population live as opposite sex couples. With approximately 89% of these households considering themselves married.

If my reading of the numbers is correct, there is, for whatever reason, a much smaller percentage of self identifying ‘LGBT’ living in a same sex household.