Supreme Court Justices Say Obergefell a ‘Problem’ for Religious Liberty

[otjm]

They aren’t forcing the Catholic church to accept gay marriage…

As I am no longer following all of the religious liberty cases, I cannot say if one is making it’s way to the Court.

And while it is not a US case, you are incorrect that people may not try to force the Church. In British Columbia, a gay couple took on the Knights of Columbus over the issue of renting the Knights’ facility for a wedding reception. Canadian Law is not identical to US Law, and my recollection is that the Knights ended up paying a hefty fine for their refusal.

The case in the US against a florist (Arlene’s Flowers) was not a Catholic Church matter, but it was a !st Amendment attack. A gay man had used the florist a number of times, and the florist and the gay man apparently knew each other fairly well. When he was having a wedding, he wanted her to do the flowers; she declined, and although he used another florist, it got into the news and the state Attorney General as well as the ACLU went after her.

it went to the Supreme Court, who sent it back down for reconsideration in light of the Colorado Case, and the Washington SC held the same outcome as before - she lost. It is not clear if she is again appealing to the US SC, and/or whether she will be able to maintain her business - there were indications the AG was trying to close her down.

 

[jeannetherese]

Just think: Up until the nineties, VA had a clerk who refused to give licenses for interracial marriages.Clarence Thomas would have been prevented from marrying his wife because of "people of good will … refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy.”

If you are arguing that that clerk had a religious motive, you should share the religious basis claimed by the clerk for his action. Otherwise, your argument seems to be lacking a foudation.

 

[Nepperhan]

It would appear that you have not read Supreme Court cases. It is not the least bit unusual for a dissenting opinion to be made in a case; and no one considers the justices who do so to be “running at the mouth”.

You don’t know how many cases I have read. As pointed out, this was not a dissent. So if Thomas and Alito are agreeing not to hear a case, why are they running off to get their two cents worth in?

 

[Nepperhan]

If you are arguing that that clerk had a religious motive, you should share the religious basis claimed by the clerk for his action. Otherwise, your argument seems to be lacking a foudation.

You’d have to ask at Bob Jones university. Particularly when Bush visited there.

"Dr. Jones had defended the university’s policy against dating and marriage by couples of different races by maintaining that it was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore came under the Constitutional protection of religious freedom.

In the Book of Genesis, he declared, the Bible tells the story of the Tower of Babel, which describes how God divided the speech of the tower builders into many languages in order that humankind would not become overly enamored of its material accomplishments and neglect its duty to God.

It is therefore a sin, Dr. Jones insisted, to oppose that divine act by permitting interracial dating. Many Christian fundamentalists do not agree with this view, but Dr. Jones drew a following and became widely recognized as a champion of racial segregation."

Bob Jones Jr., 86, Leader of Fundamentalist College, Dies - The New York Times

He was anti-Catholic, too.

 

[jeannetherese]

It seems to me that I asked you about a clerk whom you referenced in post 37. My comment was: “If you are arguing that that clerk had a religious motive, you should share the religious basis claimed by the clerk for his action. Otherwise, your argument seems to be lacking a foudation.”
In your response, you seem to be confusing a clerk with a university. One is human, the other, a school.

 

[Nepperhan]

It seems to me that I asked you about a clerk whom you referenced in post 37. My comment was: “If you are arguing that that clerk had a religious motive, you should share the religious basis claimed by the clerk for his action. Otherwise, your argument seems to be lacking a foudation.”
In your response, you seem to be confusing a clerk with a university. One is human, the other, a school.

If I remember correctly, the clerk was from VA and based his forbearance on the theology of Bob Jones University.

 

[jeannetherese]

A source backing this up would be helpful.

 

[otjm]

You don’t know how many cases I have read.

Okay, let’s try it from a different point of view; have you gone to law school?

why are they running off to get their two cents worth in?

As I noted,

it is a means of indicating that they strongly want to address the conflict, and that is part of how the Court goes about deciding cases - a strong dissent means that something is likely to come under fairly intense scrutiny when the proper case is appealed to the SC. In short, you are seeing how the Court works on major issues.

 

[HarryStotle]

JimG:

A what point in time did some religious organizations adopt same sex marriage as a tenet of faith?

I don’t know, and why would it matter?

Most religions reject the Catholic notion of morals being historically unchanging.

And most rational people reject the notion that morality is as changeable as the weather or a pair of socks.

Unfortunately, the current moulders of social norms believe themselves to be infallibly capable of re-writing longstanding moral codes on the rather flimsy ground that the whims of just any confused individual are sufficiently sound warrants for good law.

Peculiar how you presume morality is reducible to nothing more than religious belief on the presumption that universal and imperative natural moral law does not exist. Kind of puts to truck the quaint notion that truth is metaphysically foundational.

Apparently, according to your lights, morality and truth are fully founded solely upon what humans and human formed religions believe and nothing more. Is there no abiding truth to which religions more or less adhere? Just Catholic truth, Hindu truth, Mormon truth, etc. Nothing more. And none of these have any greater claim to possessing the truth than any other.

Does God have any say in the matter or do only humans determine what is finally true in all facets of reality? Odd that, since rational beings ought to realize that the Ground of Being, the Pure Act of Being Itself would be determinative in terms of moral, religious and metaphysical truth, but apparently not.

On the other hand, according to your own presumptions regarding the relativity of truth you, yourself, would completely lack any warrant for thinking you are correct to presume there is no final truth.

Kind of undermines the case you are attempting to make in its entirety. It is like saying, “None of you religious believers have any privileged access to the truth, but don’t listen to me because I don’t, either. Thanks for playing!”

 

[signit]

I wonder if it’s the congratulations that might be seen as problematical?
One doesn’t generally, I think, congratulate people on entering into a relationship associated with mortal sin.
Since the Catholic Church does not recognize such events as marriages and does not condone sex outside of marriage, it seems the Catholic university would be supporting people engaging in sexual activity which contradicts the teachings of the church.

I don’t know that they actually “congratulated” them.

I didn’t see the other poster’s alumni magazine and don’t know how it was worded.

They might not have said “Congratulations to Bob and Steve on their marriage!” It might have just been a listing of graduates who were married recently.

 

[billsherman]

And most rational people reject the notion that morality is as changeable as the weather or a pair of socks.

It looks like Reform Judaism in the US began support for same-sex marriage in the early 1990s.

I think the rabbis would be offended that you don’t think they are rational and that their views on morality change as frequently as a pair of socks.

Doesn’t this site require tolerance for the views of other religions?

In terms of specific theological underpinnings for their view of morality: I can’t help you. I don’t know. But obviously, they see same-sex marriage as a moral imperative in their religion.

Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples | Union for Reform Judaism

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I thought all this law did was allow gay marriage through the courts. It isn’t through any church.

It’s just a matter of time before someone complains that they want a church to perform their same sex ceremony and a church refuses and it ends up in court.

I realize that many on this forum love to see gloom and doom for the Church around every corner though, so such posts and views are popular.

I agree we shouldn’t see doom and gloom at every corner but to deny persecutions will happen is denying what Christ promised us:

Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: John 15:20

People that have no regard for the Church do not prefer to use Church facilities.

Not true, people love to try and prove themselves “greater than the Church” by trying to override it’s rules.

 

[Nepperhan]

Okay, let’s try it from a different point of view; have you gone to law school?

Let’s not personalize this, ok? The fact is that the comments were not in a dissent. That makes them highly superfluous.

 

[ForeverLearn]

There is a reason that separation of church and state is so important. Religious liberty is limited to the government from which allows it.

Otherwise, people could just create their own religion and bypass laws they wish not to follow by claiming infringement on religious liberty.

 

[Suudy]

Let’s not personalize this, ok? The fact is that the comments were not in a dissent. That makes them highly superfluous.

I don’t think @otjm was making it personal. His point was that in law school one would learn about the inner workings of the USSC. And the fact there was this extra text was not to be superfluous, but to signal to others that cases related to Obergefell and the 1st amendment are likely to be considered by Thomas and Alito. Perhaps it is even text to encourage writs related to this area.

How about this. If there are other examples of this type of “superfluous” text in the past, would you still consider Thomas and Alito blowhards?

 

[HarryStotle]

Doesn’t this site require tolerance for the views of other religions?

In terms of specific theological underpinnings for their view of morality: I can’t help you. I don’t know. But obviously, they see same-sex marriage as a moral imperative in their religion.

Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples | Union for Reform Judaism

I don’t think the argument was made in the article that same sex marriage was a “moral imperative.” You may want to check the meaning of imperative.

If it were, that would mean everyone was obligated to enter into same sex marriage. Not even liberal Rabbis are pushing that… yet.

Tolerance for a viewpoint doesn’t imply I must agree with it or that I can’t argue against it.

Besides, same sex marriage as a proposal relative to all of human history has occurred at about the speed of a change of socks. Nothing wrong with changing socks, but changing long-held and critical-to-human-survival moral beliefs in the span of a few decades appears to be quite fickle and capricious.

 

[billsherman]

changing long held and critical to hunan survival moral beliefs in the span of a few decades appears to be quite fickle and capricious.

I’ll be sure to send a strongly worded letter to the Union for Reform Judaism letting them know that you think their Rabbis are fickle and capricious.

 

[Nepperhan]

How about this. If there are other examples of this type of “superfluous” text in the past, would you still consider Thomas and Alito blowhards?

Yes! Look, what they wrote was no part of the issue in front of them : Whether a justiciable issue had been raised by the Plaintiffs.

“Thomas and Alito said they agreed with the decision not to accept the case, because it did not “cleanly” present the questions they felt are raised by the court’s 5-to-4 decision.”

Basically, the issue before SCOTUS was whether the Plaintiffs had stated a case. The Justices could agree or disagree – all else was persiflage.

 

[goout]

HarryStotle:

And most rational people reject the notion that morality is as changeable as the weather or a pair of socks.

It looks like Reform Judaism in the US began support for same-sex marriage in the early 1990s.

If you define morality as simply another form of whim, you have a point. Morality is not whimsical, and it doesn’t depend on the force of opinion, it depends on objective good. Objective good is obtained by seeing, hearing, discerning, what is real. And moral decisions are made in pursuit of that real good.

What is real in this arena of marriage?
1 Human beings are existing. Does it make sense to you that human beings must exist, and can you observe it with your senses? I hope you can. Human beings exist.
2 It is good to be existing. I hope you also agree.
3 Human beings come into existence exactly one way: by the fruitful union of a man and a woman. I hope you agree.

I hope you can also agree that this good of human existence is exceptional…ok?
It’s not like “ice cream is great!”, or even “it is good for human beings to have work”. That is a great good, but human existence is an exceptional and foundational good. I hope you can agree with that.

The Church’s sane observation of this good leads it to protect and promote it. That’s not arbitrary whim, it’s sane observation, and it is bound up with the good of human existence. To veer off and make equivalencies of things that aren’t equivalent is in contrast to that. It demonstrates the loss of reason that Paul excoriates in Romans 1.

 

[goout]

To boil it down:
many relationships have the goods of companionship and intimacy and shared lives…insurance benefits, inheritance, etc…
In addition to that, marriage is unique in it’s participation in existential human good. That ought to be recognized, protected, and promoted.