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

[billsherman]

I hope you can also agree that this good of human existence is exceptional…ok?

I hope you can agree that the majority of the world’s population does not take its moral instruction from the Church.

It is kind of silly to hold Jewish rabbis to the moral theological standards of a religion they don’t follow.

I mean, wouldn’t you be appalled if someone (or some government!) tried to hold you to the moral standards of Islam?

Instead of trying to prove the rabbis wrong, why don’t we just respect their position and try to clean up our own house (this very site has had several posts recently declaring the Pope to be a heretic or anti-Pope).

 

[goout]

goout:

I hope you can also agree that this good of human existence is exceptional…ok?

I hope you can agree that the majority of the world’s population does not take its moral instruction from the Church.

It is kind of silly to hold Jewish rabbis to the moral theological standards of a religion they don’t follow.

I mean, wouldn’t you be appalled if someone (or some government!) tried to hold you to the moral standards of Islam?

Instead of trying to prove the rabbis wrong, why don’t we just respect their position and try to clean up our own house (this very site has had several posts recently declaring the Pope to be a heretic or anti-Pope).

Ok so you have no intention of really engaging my post. That’s ok.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

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

The Church is legally protected from things like that happening anyways.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The Church is legally protected from things like that happening anyways.

For now it is. There are those hoping to change that.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

For now it is. There are those hoping to change that.

They don’t have much of a case.

 

[otjm]

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

That was not a highly personal question; it was a legitimate question: your comment is one I have never, in 45 years heard an attorney make as to any dissent (and we can both agree this was not a dissenting opinion as there was no case decision - it was sent back to the lower court) or to any published opinion attached to a refusal to grant cert.

And I passed the bar in 1974, so it is not as if I have had no connection to attorneys.

It appears that you have an issue, not with the fact that an opinion was stated, but rather with the substance of what they said. Which is another way of saying that you appear to not be an attorney, but rather are offended with the substance of what they said.

And as has been said by me and another poster, when there is a matter of serious consideration of a past decision - or a decision which is being made and objected to - or a matter which at least some of the Justices feel needs to be addressed by the Court, it will appear as it has in the current case. It is not persiflage, it is not running their mouths, and it is not superfluous.

It is how the justices signal issues which need to be addressed.

Which gets back to why I asked you if you had gone to law school, as you likely would not be making such comments as the process of Court considerations would have been covered.

You may disagree with their position as they stated; this is a discussion forum and pros and cons are discussed. You may feel that Obergefell was correctly decided - and in that you will have a lot of company. The Church is adamantly opposed to the decision, and I have a number of Catholic friends who attend Mass regularly who feel the opposite - that gays have every right to be married. And I understand some of the underlying issues such as end of life decisions and inheritance driving some of the “why” of Obergefell.

However, you now have been answered by two people who have practiced law; perhaps we can put the issue to bed, and refrain from categorizing the comments of the two Justices.

 

[billsherman]

Ok so you have no intention of really engaging my post. That’s ok.

Your argument is with the Union of Reform Judaism rabbis, not me.

I simply don’t know why they hold the moral views that they do. But I do know enough to not lecture them because they don’t hold the moral views that I do.

 

[Nepperhan]

That was not a highly personal question; it was a legitimate question: your comment is one I have never, in 45 years heard an attorney make as to any dissent (and we can both agree this was not a dissenting opinion as there was no case decision - it was sent back to the lower court) or to any published opinion attached to a refusal to grant cert.

And I passed the bar in 1974, so it is not as if I have had no connection to attorneys.

I graduated from college in the early seventies. If your inquiry (which is really a statement) is if legal precepts are involved, the answer is yes.

It appears that you have an issue, not with the fact that an opinion was stated, but rather with the substance of what they said.

That’s somewhat paternalistic. My issue is with accuracy. Neither SCOTUS nor Thomas and Alito ruled on ss marriage in the case. Furthermore, the comments of Thomas were less than dicta, which is often classed as extra language in a decision which is not on the subject matter, like “secular humanism”.

Which is another way of saying that you appear to not be an attorney, but rather are offended with the substance of what they said.

I usually appear in a puff of smoke. You need to get off this particular line of commenting.

And as has been said by me and another poster, when there is a matter of serious consideration of a past decision - or a decision which is being made and objected to - or a matter which at least some of the Justices feel needs to be addressed by the Court, it will appear as it has in the current case. It is not persiflage, it is not running their mouths, and it is not superfluous.

It is how the justices signal issues which need to be addressed.

Thomas had his chance to put his oar in when the case was decided previously. His signalling that the case deserves another look is out of line. Precedent is a coin of their realm.

However, you now have been answered by two people who have practiced law; perhaps we can put the issue to bed, and refrain from categorizing the comments of the two Justices.

What cheek! You think I should not voice my opinion because I do not say whether or not I am lawyer? Deal with the subject.

If you look closely my comments happen to be accurate. Perhaps we can put the issue of the credibility of my comments to bed.

 

[goout]

goout:

Ok so you have no intention of really engaging my post. That’s ok.

Your argument is with the Union of Reform Judaism rabbis, not me.

I simply don’t know why they hold the moral views that they do. But I do know enough to not lecture them because they don’t hold the moral views that I do.

Show me where I even mentioned that group.
You completely evaded the post.
The post is nothing but common sense observation. Why is that troubling to you?
Here it is again:

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.

What is it that you specifically disagree with in points 1-3?

 

[billsherman]

What is it that you specifically disagree with in points 1-3?

My apologies. For some reason I thought you were discussing the moral positions of Reform Judaism, in which same-sex marriage is supported as a tenet of their faith.

I was trying to make the point - and proved it with the evidence of Reform Judaism - that not all religions adhere to the concept that morality is fixed and does not change over time.

Different religions have different ways of conceiving and addressing moral issues. Naturally, they won’t always agree. I don’t know why that would be controversial.

 

[goout]

goout:

What is it that you specifically disagree with in points 1-3?

My apologies. For some reason I thought you were discussing the moral positions of Reform Judaism, in which same-sex marriage is supported as a tenet of their faith.

I was trying to make the point - and proved it with the evidence of Reform Judaism - that not all religions adhere to the concept that morality is fixed and does not change over time.

Different religions have different ways of conceiving and addressing moral issues. Naturally, they won’t always agree. I don’t know why that would be controversial.

Why is this controversial for the Catholic Church to observe?
1 Human beings exist
2 It’s good to exist
3 Only one way for existence to happen: the union of a man and woman
4 That reality is worth affirming, protecting, and promoting in it’s unique good

What is objectionable about the Church observing and affirming that reality?

 

[billsherman]

Why is this controversial for the Catholic Church to observe?

It isn’t.

But why would you expect other religions to agree with the Church on same-sex marriage?

Not every couple has children, even opposite-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages won’t wipe out humanity.

 

[jeannetherese]

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.

I was responding to AIng’s post which said:
“Maybe, but not some of the Roman Catholic colleges. i get an alumni magazine from a Roman Catholic college and they have congratulated their graduates who enter into SS marriages. They even have pictures of the celebrations. And a candidate for President who says he is an Irish Catholic has officiated at a SS wedding.”

While this may be unfamiliar to you, Aing is quite familiar with it due to the announcements in the Catholic College alumni magazine. My response, which noted the problem of congratulating people on choosing sexual activity which contradicts church teaching, was addressing this.

 

[HarryStotle]

goout:

I hope you can also agree that this good of human existence is exceptional…ok?

I hope you can agree that the majority of the world’s population does not take its moral instruction from the Church.

I hope we can agree that moral standards are not defined by surveying the population of the world in general.

That would be an instance of the is-ought fallacy, i.e., that moral oughts are not to be derived from the way things is are in the world.

It is kind of silly to hold Jewish rabbis to the moral theological standards of a religion they don’t follow.

Since we are speaking of morality and morality - properly speaking - assumes universal moral obligation, it isn’t clear to me how theological concepts nullify morality.

Unless you want to merely assume no absolute moral standards exist and morality is purely relative then morality by its very nature applies to all moral agents irrespective of their religious affiliation.

I mean, wouldn’t you be appalled if someone (or some government!) tried to hold you to the moral standards of Islam?

Instead of trying to prove the rabbis wrong, why don’t we just respect their position and try to clean up our own house (this very site has had several posts recently declaring the Pope to be a heretic or anti-Pope).

I wouldn’t be appalled if that “someone” could provide compelling moral reasons to follow the moral standards of Islam, but I am always appalled by “someone” attempting to persuade others to follow inferior moral standards - moral relativism, for example.

Whether or not the Pope is a heretic is not resolved by outrage at the mere suggestion that he might be. It is resolved by assessing the meaning of his words on the particular issue in question.

Cleaning up one’s own house starts with clarity regarding what is true. It does not begin by muddying the water by implying there is no clarity to be had from the get go.

Modern culture has become very sloppy with the standards it offers for determining anything regarding morality and reality.

Your own position appears to be that there is no absolute morality or truth with regard to religion but all moral systems and religions are to be considered equally valid. Is that not your position?

If it is then it isn’t clear what you mean by “our own house.” I didn’t think Catholicism embraced moral or religious relativism.

 

[billsherman]

Your own position appears to be that there is no absolute morality or truth with regard to religion but all moral systems and religions are to be considered equally valid. Is that not your position?

It’s not. My position is that every religion considers its moral teachings to be the right moral teachings, and that it is absurd to think non-Catholics would think Catholic moral teaching is superior to their own.

I don’t follow Islamic moral teaching, but I’ve never dreamed of expecting Muslims to follow mine. Is that relativism? I don’t think so, because it makes no argument about whether or not Islamic moral teaching is correct (and I don’t know anything about it, so I can’t possibly judge).

Also, there are undoubtedly religions that do follow a relativistic system of moral theology. American law, which is what this thread is about, must take that into account, because it is law that applies to everyone, not just Catholics.

 

[TMC]

They don’t have much of a case.

Yes. There were similar concerns raised after Loving, and nothing like that has taken place. Its a pure strawman, extra straw.

 

[HarryStotle]

Also, there are undoubtedly religions that do follow a relativistic system of moral theology. American law, which is what this thread is about, must take that into account, because it is law that applies to everyone, not just Catholics.

No actually. American law ought to focus on what is fair, just and objectively moral. It need not take into account relativistic notions of morality. If a religion espouses what is objectively immoral - child sacrifice, for example - the law does not need to accommodate for those religious beliefs. Adherents to religious traditions ought to be free to practice those traditions provided they are not morally objectionable. That is what freedom of religion means.

The issue arises when the relativistic error creeps in that suggests no objective morality exists and therefore the law must accommodate to religious traditions merely because they are religious traditions. If they are objectively morally wrong the law need not allow for them.

That applies to Catholic traditions as well, which is why Catholics need to argue for Catholic ethics from the perspective that objective morality points to Catholic ethics as being objectively correct from a moral perspective not a theological one alone.

We are not convinced of a Catholic morality because we are Catholic but because we seek good moral agency.

To accommodate to inferior morality merely because some religion somewhere espouses it is without justification.

The law applies to everyone because it ought to be based upon universal moral principles. To begin squirreling in inferior moral dogmas because “American law, … must take [them]… into account…” is to decouple law from morality AND create an avenue for religions to interfere with just laws by undermining the separation of Church and State.

American law should be concerned with what is objectively just and moral not with what religious adherents want incorporated.

That is not to say religious adherents cannot impact the law, but that they ought ONLY impact the law when their religious moral beliefs are objectively superior to the current law; not merely because they are beliefs that MUST be accommodated simply because they must - which appears to be what you are arguing.

 

[billsherman]

American law should be concerned with what is objectively just and moral not with what religious adherents want incorporated.

How are people supposed to agree on whether or not same-sex marriage is objectively just and moral, or not?

I have given a very clear example of how Reform Judaism believes that same-sex marriage is objectively just and moral. The Catholic Church disagrees. How does our society know which one is right?

It doesn’t, because there is no easy way to resolve that. Catholics, like you, will say their view is objectively correct, but Jews, like a rabbi friend of mine, will say that their view is objectively correct.

The only realistic way for the law to handle this, is to simply do what it did: states can’t ban same-sex marriage, but no one is forced to participate in one (courts have ruled that merely signing a marriage certificate is not participation - edge cases like this will continue to be litigated).

On the other hand, if same-sex marriage were outlawed, people with no connection to the Church at all (like Reform and Conservative Jews) would be prohibited from marrying due to laws favoring another religions moral code over their own.

Its easy to say morality should be objective and universal. It’s near impossible to determine what that objective and universal moral code should be. Look at this very website, there are very loud posters who dissent from the Church’s clear and unequivocal stance that the death penalty is inadmissible. Even Catholics don’t agree on what is objectively moral with regard to the death penalty. What is a law maker to do in that case?

 

[AAichael]

I would say that the Supreme Court should consider whether 9-0 is more appropriate, I mean, what are we doing, enorcing divisiveness? Is there not the expectation that this ruling will be enforced unanimously? This ruling is a siezure waiting to happen for most Americans and our courts and congress should seriously consider the “self-evident” unanimous nature of the actual constitution of things, that which is the highest power because it is simply constitutive reality and is naturally enforced. This is the constitution that is in power when lesser laws seem to be broken but are actually imaginary in a not real way conflicting with the actual constitutive nature of things. A good solution for this case is that as the 5-4 ruling suggests, there is actually a constitutive reality that would be better suited for our constitution that would be found by effort at the place of a 9-0 supreme court ruling. Also, a good solution is that people requiring same-sex marriages, marry themselves and create their own church for this specific issue that other churches do not seem to accommodate. It is hard to say that the ruling currently would make much difference, the court itself is divided amongst just 9 people as for the understanding of this issue. At best we could enforce a divisive state in the nation as a whole as this is the only thing the court has created/confirmed. A 5-4 ruling does not magically put constitutive understanding such that it is enforcable, because the court can’t itself resolve the issue to the constitutive truth, in fact all they did was officially make case law that is divisive and are reflecting the same issue in the first place…which is still the way we have it in all 50 states…surprisingly.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

American law should be concerned with what is objectively just and moral not with what religious adherents want incorporated.

How are people supposed to agree on whether or not same-sex marriage is objectively just and moral, or not?

I have given a very clear example of how Reform Judaism believes that same-sex marriage is objectively just and moral. The Catholic Church disagrees. How does our society know which one is right?

It doesn’t, because there is no easy way to resolve that. Catholics, like you, will say their view is objectively correct, but Jews, like a rabbi friend of mine, will say that their view is objectively correct.

The only realistic way for the law to handle this, is to simply do what it did: states can’t ban same-sex marriage, but no one is forced to participate in one (courts have ruled that merely signing a marriage certificate is not participation - edge cases like this will continue to be litigated).

On the other hand, if same-sex marriage were outlawed, people with no connection to the Church at all (like Reform and Conservative Jews) would be prohibited from marrying due to laws favoring another religions moral code over their own.

Its easy to say morality should be objective and universal. It’s near impossible to determine what that objective and universal moral code should be. Look at this very website, there are very loud posters who dissent from the Church’s clear and unequivocal stance that the death penalty is inadmissible. Even Catholics don’t agree on what is objectively moral with regard to the death penalty. What is a law maker to do in that case?

The word “inadmissible” is an unfortunate choice because it doesn’t specifically declare the death penalty to be immoral, but neither does it allow that the penalty could ever be applied.

The Church has taught for almost 2000 years that the death penalty is not immoral. It couldn’t be because God commanded the Israelites to put transgressors to death. God would have commanded human beings to commit an immorality, if “inadmissible” is taken to mean immoral.

There is a strong argument to be made that same sex marriage is an impossibility based upon what marriage is as a human reality.

The reason there has been disagreement is because the language surrounding marriage has been altered to push a particular view. Merely because there is current disagreement does not mean a reasonable moral perspective is impossible. Slavery was contentious at one time but that does not mean both views were morally correct. Continued discussion and fairly working out the moral repercussions is the way to resolve the issue. Of course there will be disagreement. There always is when significant personal interests are at stake.