Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[Darryl_Revok]

You know very well what our cause is: To legally neutralize militant homosexuals from acting as monsters who attack our Constitutional right to freely and openly practice our Faith in the market place, in our Church and in the schools we pay for with our taxes.

Here. Right here’s part of the problem. A couple of posts ago, you started making subtle Nazi/Jew comparisons, and here you’re referring to your ideological enemy as “monsters”.

While I agree with your general sentiments in re: constitutional rights, dehumanizing terminology, along with a general hysterical tone, is no way to win converts and allies. And you want another segment of homosexual society to join you in an ideological battle?

We want the freedom God grants all Americans in the compact our Founders built with Him–a freedom which never before existed anywhere else in the world and for which Americans have been fighting and dying for ever since. It’s called American exceptionalism; the envy of the world.

This is very eloquent, but as a student of history, I consider America more a beneficiary of historical trends and forces than any divine design. I’ve seen little evidence of God’s intervention in any modern nation-state.

Also, what kind of freedom are we talking about here? I should note that the Old World embraced abolition decades before the New; was the three-fifths compromise part of the compact?

In short, Darryl, our cause is to regain our God-given right to live freely as American Catholics–something militant homosexuals and their Liberal political allies don’t want us to enjoy any longer. They call its denial to us “progress.”

Do you consider the *existence *of the right to homosexual marriage an infringement on your rights, or just the lawsuits in re: bakeries, etc.

Do you really think we will give that up because some militants don’t like it? Wars have been started over less.

I have a difficulty separating the actual menace presented by militant homosexuality, and the *illusion *of a menace meant to stir up a moral panic for political gain.

 

[JimG]

The real losers in the redefining of marriage are children. They have been thoroughly detached from mom and dad. Genealogy services might as well go out of business. If the State says that Jack and Phil are your “parents,” that’s what will be on the birth certificate, even though the kids might realize that’s a biological impossibility.

Contraception unlinked children from sex. SSM unlinks them from parents. So sorry, kids.

“The problem is not whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry; it is the fact that redefining marriage in the law deletes “a man and a woman” and replaces it with two people. That eliminates from the law the only civil institution that unites children with their moms and dads, along with all authority to promote it.”

What Redefining Marriage Really Means.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The real losers in the redefining of marriage are children. They have been thoroughly detached from mom and dad. Genealogy services might as well go out of business. If the State says that Jack and Phil are your “parents,” that’s what will be on the birth certificate, even though the kids might realize that’s a biological impossibility.

Contraception unlinked children from sex. SSM unlinks them from parents. So sorry, kids.

“The problem is not whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry; it is the fact that redefining marriage in the law deletes “a man and a woman” and replaces it with two people. That eliminates from the law the only civil institution that unites children with their moms and dads, along with all authority to promote it.”

What Redefining Marriage Really Means.

Well said. And brace yourself for the following argument: "Well, it’s better than leaving them in a foster home or aborting them at Planned Parenthood (crunching higher and less) and donating their livers to research. Our new more inclusive moral sliding scale is astonishing. It would horrify every other animal on this planet.

 

[KSU]

Here. Right here’s part of the problem. A couple of posts ago, you started making subtle Nazi/Jew comparisons, and here you’re referring to your ideological enemy as “monsters”.

**Well, I’m not surprised that you want to substitute some sort of invented insult for actual argument; it’s the common tactic of the Left when it loses the high ground: “Oh, heavens to Betsy, he’s a racist” or a misogynist or a member of the Tea Party. As for my use of the word “monster” in reference to those homosexuals who violently crash celebrations of the Mass and desecrate the Eucharist, or beat up Christians at peaceful protests, or vulgarly disrespect priests and nuns at public events, or attempt to drive us out of business, or debauch our young teens, etc., you bet I use the term “monsters”. If this were not a Catholic website, I could employ some other terms. **

While I agree with your general sentiments in re: constitutional rights, dehumanizing terminology, along with a general hysterical tone, is no way to win converts and allies. And you want another segment of homosexual society to join you in an ideological battle?

Thank you for your advice, but I’ll stick with “monster”. My appeal for homosexual allies to join with Catholics against all the civil and religious evils perpetrated by the militants is meant of course for the decently acting and speaking, patriotic homosexuals; the people who don’t want trouble and even sympathize with us.

This is very eloquent, but as a student of history, I consider America more a beneficiary of historical trends and forces than any divine design. I’ve seen little evidence of God’s intervention in any modern nation-state.

I’m sorry for you.

Also, what kind of freedom are we talking about here? I should note that the Old World embraced abolition decades before the New; was the three-fifths compromise part of the compact?

Since you are are a learned person, I’ll assume that’s just a slur on our country’s founding principles, not a serious question. The three-fifths compromise was just as absurd a Supreme Court decision as the SSM decision. It’s just another example of how despicable the Court can be when it disregards its oaths.

Do you consider the *existence *of the right to homosexual marriage an infringement on your rights, or just the lawsuits in re: bakeries, etc.

There is as much a right to same sex “marriage” as there is a right to assign someone only three fifths of personhood. It is an infringement on the Constitution at least. The lawsuits in re: bakeries, etc. are an infringement on civil and religious rights under the Constitution.

I have a difficulty separating the actual menace presented by militant homosexuality, and the *illusion *of a menace meant to stir up a moral panic for political gain.

I don’t know what illusion you are talking about.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

The real losers in the redefining of marriage are children. They have been thoroughly detached from mom and dad. Genealogy services might as well go out of business. If the State says that Jack and Phil are your “parents,” that’s what will be on the birth certificate, even though the kids might realize that’s a biological impossibility.

Contraception unlinked children from sex. SSM unlinks them from parents. So sorry, kids.

“The problem is not whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry; it is the fact that redefining marriage in the law deletes “a man and a woman” and replaces it with two people. That eliminates from the law the only civil institution that unites children with their moms and dads, along with all authority to promote it.”

What Redefining Marriage Really Means.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Well, I’m not surprised that you want to substitute some sort of invented insult for actual argument; it’s the common tactic of the Left when it loses the high ground: “Oh, heavens to Betsy, he’s a racist” or a misogynist or a member of the Tea Party.

I didn’t insult you; I merely pointed out a certain cognitive dissonance in your examples.

My appeal for homosexual allies to join with Catholics against all the civil and religious evils perpetrated by the militants is meant of course for the decently acting and speaking, patriotic homosexuals; the people who don’t want trouble and even sympathize with us.

What would you provide them in return? Would they gain any privileges or consideration for their support? Perhaps, figuratively, a place in the house rather than the field?

Since you are are a learned person, I’ll assume that’s just a slur on our country’s founding principles, not a serious question. The three-fifths compromise was just as absurd a Supreme Court decision as the SSM decision. It’s just another example of how despicable the Court can be when it disregards its oaths.

You’re thinking of the Dred Scott decision (I hope).

The three-fifths compromise was a Constitutional–Constitutional–provision that ensured that, for the first eighty years or so of the Republic, that slaves would count both as taxable property and as population to determine representation. They would provide economic and political benefits to the Federal and State governments with none of the perks. This was a founding principle.

There is as much a right to same sex “marriage” as there is a right to assign someone only three fifths of personhood. It is an infringement on the Constitution at least. The lawsuits in re: bakeries, etc. are an infringement on civil and religious rights under the Constitution.

So if there were no lawsuits–if the ability to sue were taken away–would same sex marriage be acceptable?

 

[KSU]

I didn’t insult you; I merely pointed out a certain cognitive dissonance in your examples.

OK, I thought you were saying I had insulted you.

What would you provide them in return? Would they gain any privileges or consideration for their support? Perhaps, figuratively, a place in the house rather than the field?

They would achieve the satisfaction of doing the right thing, and would demonstrate that most homosexual persons are tolerant and respectful of others’ religious and civil rights under the Constitution; that they do not support the monsters’ assault on Catholicism. In turn, decent homosexuals would gain respect from all except the monsters. No, they would not achieve a change in Catholic Doctrine, but perhaps a compromise of sorts for peaceful coexistence would result.

You’re thinking of the Dred Scott decision (I hope).

**You’re correct, Darryl, I was thinking of that case because, in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that for taxation and voting purposes slaves were only three-fifths human. With the Supreme Court SSM decision in mind, I hastily concluded your reference to the three-fifths compromise was a reference to Dred Scott. My apologies. **

The three-fifths compromise was a Constitutional–Constitutional–provision that ensured that, for the first eighty years or so of the Republic, that slaves would count both as taxable property and as population to determine representation. They would provide economic and political benefits to the Federal and State governments with none of the perks. This was a founding principle.

It was a founding Constitutional principle, but only with the built-in caveat that it would be discarded when decency ultimately prevailed, as it did. And it did because the new, exceptional America which the compromise produced was a compact with God–a design with the partnership of the divine which you deny.

So if there were no lawsuits–if the ability to sue were taken away–would same sex marriage be acceptable?

**Not to the Church, of course, but what do you care about that? If there were no lawsuits of any sort, and our children were not propagandized in school, there may well be peaceful coexistence. Come join us, Darryl **

 

[Rau]

…So if there were no lawsuits–if the ability to sue were taken away–would same sex marriage be acceptable?

I wouldn’t think so! It would remain a matter for differing opinions and democratic debate and resolution. But there would be less to debate. Less injustice.

 

[KSU]

I wouldn’t think so! It would remain a matter for differing opinions and democratic debate and resolution. But there would be less to debate. Less injustice.

Amen!

 

[SavannahGal]

I’m surprised to see no response here to the actual legal justification set forth in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, nor much comment on the dissents.

It seems that any legal considerations have been bypassed in favor of assuming and welcoming (it seems in some cases) of those requesting recognition of polygamy. While it should come as no surprise that others will inevitably try to jump on the bandwagon, a legal examination of their argument is not to be found. It seems some are of the opinion that if you open the door to one who has knocked upon it, you must leave the door ajar and permit anyone else to enter. “Yes” to anyone else who presents before the court requesting the right to marriage: polygamists, polyamorists, pedarists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc…

I realize this is not a legal forum, but would expect educated Catholics to possess far more capability of evaluating the legal issues before the court, especially in light of the fact that they are all written in a manner very approachable to the lay person.

It seems as if gay marriage opponents have not only invited polygamists to come forward, but laid out the welcome mat in hopes that they will receive legal recognition proving their slippery slope arguments accurate.

 

[Rau]

I’m surprised to see no response here to the actual legal justification set forth in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, nor much comment on the dissents.

It seems that any legal considerations have been bypassed in favor of assuming and welcoming (it seems in some cases) of those requesting recognition of polygamy. While it should come as no surprise that others will inevitably try to jump on the bandwagon, a legal examination of their argument is not to be found. It seems some are of the opinion that if you open the door to one who has knocked upon it, you must leave the door ajar and permit anyone else to enter. “Yes” to anyone else who presents before the court requesting the right to marriage: polygamists, polyamorists, pedarists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc…

I realize this is not a legal forum, but would expect educated Catholics to possess far more capability of evaluating the legal issues before the court, especially in light of the fact that they are all written in a manner very approachable to the lay person.

It seems as if gay marriage opponents have not only invited polygamists to come forward, but laid out the welcome mat in hopes that they will receive legal recognition proving their slippery slope arguments accurate.

I would be pleased if anyone could succinctly explain how the US Constitution treats marriage. If it does not, the Justices may have served you better by stating as much. Then, it would be up to the American people to pursue a change to the Constitution to make their wishes in the matter explicit.

 

[Finite]

My wife’s nephew is marrying the man he’s spent the last decade with. We received this in our inbox today.



We marked our calendars. They’re a wonderful couple who have endured more than most couples ever have to. Like all the other weddings taking place, I don’t think this one will make the sky fall, either. They’re just two people in love, getting married. Needless to say, I’ll be there. I think society will survive it.

 

[Rau]

My wife’s nephew is marrying the man he’s spent the last decade with. We received this in our inbox today.

We marked our calendars. They’re a wonderful couple who have endured more than most couples ever have to. Like all the other weddings taking place, I don’t think this one will make the sky fall, either. They’re just two people in love, getting married. Needless to say, I’ll be there. I think society will survive it.

What led you to conclude that 2 men engaging in sexual activity is fine and wonderful? Was it that they are a “wonderful couple”? That they are “in love”?

 

[Finite]

What led you to conclude that 2 men engaging in sexual activity is fine and wonderful? Was it that they are a “wonderful couple”? That they are “in love”?

1. their “sexual activity” is no ones business.
2. they’re not “in love”. They’re in love. And they are a wonderful couple, and wonderful people. They’re active members of their church. They volunteer on a regular basis. They foster animals until they can be adopted. They’re by no means saints (who among us are?), bu they’re certainly wonderful people. And a couple. Therefore, a wonderful couple.

These are people who have no beef with you, the Catholic Church, or Christians with “traditional values”. But you sure are hellbent in pointing out how everything about their relationship is “evil” and fake.

 

[OU812]

These are people who have no beef with you, the Catholic Church, or Christians with “traditional values”. But you sure are hellbent in pointing out how everything about their relationship is “evil” and fake.

You know what Catholicism says about homosexual relationships. So why post a photo of them in a Catholic forum?

 

[KSU]

I’m surprised to see no response here to the actual legal justification set forth in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, nor much comment on the dissents.

It seems that any legal considerations have been bypassed in favor of assuming and welcoming (it seems in some cases) of those requesting recognition of polygamy. While it should come as no surprise that others will inevitably try to jump on the bandwagon, a legal examination of their argument is not to be found. It seems some are of the opinion that if you open the door to one who has knocked upon it, you must leave the door ajar and permit anyone else to enter. “Yes” to anyone else who presents before the court requesting the right to marriage: polygamists, polyamorists, pedarists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc…

I realize this is not a legal forum, but would expect educated Catholics to possess far more capability of evaluating the legal issues before the court, especially in light of the fact that they are all written in a manner very approachable to the lay person.

It seems as if gay marriage opponents have not only invited polygamists to come forward, but laid out the welcome mat in hopes that they will receive legal recognition proving their slippery slope arguments accurate.

Just what legal case do you expect opponents of SSM to make here that haven’t been made in the dissents? The majority opinion was hardly a brilliant legal brief to begin with. It was sophomoric; based on ideology, not law, a la the judicially legislated transformation of murder into a constitutional right of a mother to kill her unborn child.

The Justices know that, but, for the time being, so what? For the Left, ideology trumps law.

 

[KSU]

1. their “sexual activity” is no ones business.

So why shout it from the rooftops by changing the definition of marriage? Can’t they engage in sexual activity without an attempted blessing from some “church”? Will they forego sexual activity until a Christian baker is forced to bake them a cake?

 

[estesbob]

My wife’s nephew is marrying the man he’s spent the last decade with. We received this in our inbox today.

We marked our calendars. They’re a wonderful couple who have endured more than most couples ever have to. Like all the other weddings taking place, I don’t think this one will make the sky fall, either. They’re just two people in love, getting married. Needless to say, I’ll be there. I think society will survive it.

I wish it were that easy but it is not. Regardless of what they say and what you may believe they’re not getting married. Regardless of how “in love” they are their actions are putting their immortal souls in danger and their public scandal can serve to put others at risk I know from experience it’s very hard look at these things spiritually when close family members are involved but there is absolutely nothing joyful about this event .

 

[estesbob]

I’m surprised to see no response here to the actual legal justification set forth in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, nor much comment on the dissents.

It seems that any legal considerations have been bypassed in favor of assuming and welcoming (it seems in some cases) of those requesting recognition of polygamy. While it should come as no surprise that others will inevitably try to jump on the bandwagon, a legal examination of their argument is not to be found. It seems some are of the opinion that if you open the door to one who has knocked upon it, you must leave the door ajar and permit anyone else to enter. “Yes” to anyone else who presents before the court requesting the right to marriage: polygamists, polyamorists, pedarists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc…

I realize this is not a legal forum, but would expect educated Catholics to possess far more capability of evaluating the legal issues before the court, especially in light of the fact that they are all written in a manner very approachable to the lay person.

It seems as if gay marriage opponents have not only invited polygamists to come forward, but laid out the welcome mat in hopes that they will receive legal recognition proving their slippery slope arguments accurate.

I follow a higher law than that of five unelected officials in Washington DC. I would expect educated Catholics to know what a terrible blow this is to culture and how many souls are going to be put in danger by these five people mocking marriage and further limiting our religious freedoms .

 

[Rau]

1. their “sexual activity” is no ones business.
2. they’re not “in love”. They’re in love. And they are a wonderful couple, and wonderful people. They’re active members of their church. They volunteer on a regular basis. They foster animals until they can be adopted. They’re by no means saints (who among us are?), bu they’re certainly wonderful people. And a couple. Therefore, a wonderful couple.

These are people who have no beef with you, the Catholic Church, or Christians with “traditional values”. But you sure are hellbent in pointing out how everything about their relationship is “evil” and fake.

They are getting married, and marriage is a sexual relationship. I didn’t ask about anything about their “sexual relationship”, I just asked what led you to conclude that a sexual relationship between two men is fine?