Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KSU said:
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.
Click to expand...
Minor nitpick here. The 3/5 compromise in the Constitution, contrary to what most people believe, was an ANTI-slavery position. It was added by slavery opponents to LOWER the political power of the slave holding states. If slaves were counted as a full person, the representation in the House of Representatives would have been greater for the slave states. But who’s voting for those congressional seats? It wasn’t the slaves. So by only giving 3/5 of a person to the total for allotting representation, it was a way to limit their power.

Many people mistakenly believe the 3/5 compromise was something added by the slave-holders to dehumanize slaves, when it was the anti-slavery forces who added it in.
 
Finite said:
  1. their “sexual activity” is no ones business.
Click to expand...
Sin isn’t private, and the state of their immortal souls IS a concern for Catholics.
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
Wonderful couples have concern first for the welfare of the other person. Their souls are in jeopardy of eternal damnation from their sexual activity. That undermines any claim to be 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.
Click to expand...
Concern for souls overrides being “polite”. Lots of people get damned to hell because people are too polite they don’t want to upset anyone by speaking truth to them.
 
Finite said:
  1. their “sexual activity” is no ones business.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. So why are they making it everyone’s business by holding a public ceremony celebrating their “sexual activity?”

Some will even go so far as to take bakers, photographers, planners, innkeepers, etc., to court for NOT making it part of THEIR business.
Finite said:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
The fact that they are wonderful people, active in their church, volunteer regularly, and foster animals does not legitimize what they do with their sexual organs. In fact, is irrelevant to it.

Again, if what they do with their sexual organs is none of anyone’s business, why do gays attempt to make it everyone’s business by holding gay pride parades, lobby for same sex marriage, take to court those who don’t want to make it part of their business and, generally, make life difficult for those who want no part of it by calling them bigoted and homophobic?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Yes, of course. So why are they making it everyone’s business by holding a public ceremony celebrating their “sexual activity?”

Some will even go so far as to take bakers, photographers, planners, innkeepers, etc., to court for NOT making it part of THEIR business.

The fact that they are wonderful people, active in their church, volunteer regularly, and foster animals does not legitimize what they do with their sexual organs. In fact, is irrelevant to it.

Again, if what they do with their sexual organs is none of anyone’s business, why do gays attempt to make it everyone’s business by holding gay pride parades, lobby for same sex marriage, take to court those who don’t want to make it part of their business and, generally, make life difficult for those who want no part of it by calling them bigoted and homophobic?
Click to expand...
Why do Catholics condone the Church covering up countless cases of molestation by their priests?

See what I did there? When you say “gays”, you’re making a sweeping assumption that applies to all of them. The few bad apples don’t represent the whole tree. And it’s hard for me to take anything from the moral code of the church given its history of covering up its misdeeds.

Anyway, like it or not, yes, they’re getting married in the eyes of their church and the government. What the Catholic Church says about it is irrelevant
 
Finite said:
Why do Catholics condone the Church covering up countless cases of molestation by their priests?

See what I did there? When you say “gays”, you’re making a sweeping assumption that applies to all of them. The few bad apples don’t represent the whole tree. And it’s hard for me to take anything from the moral code of the church given its history of covering up its misdeeds.

Anyway, like it or not, yes, they’re getting married in the eyes of their church and the government. What the Catholic Church says about it is irrelevant
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant for those who prefer that morality be determined per the whims of the current culture.
 
Finite said:
Why do Catholics condone the Church covering up countless cases of molestation by their priests?
Click to expand...
Catholics do not condone the cover up of molestation cases. We are outraged by that scandal. Because most of the guilty priests were admittedly or openly homosexual and those doing the covering up were either homosexual themselves or sympathetic to gays.
.
Anyway, like it or not, yes, they’re getting married in the eyes of their church and the government. What the Catholic Church says about it is irrelevant
Click to expand...
That is a true statement.

I am sure that the “soon-to-be-newly-weds” who are “a wonderful couple, and wonderful people” will respect my religious beliefs and show considerable tolerance if I do not accept their relationship as a marriage.
 
Finite said:
The few bad apples don’t represent the whole tree. And it’s hard for me to take anything from the moral code of the church given its history of covering up its misdeeds.

**You’re not making any sense. You acknowledge that it’s just a few bad apples in the Church who covered up homosexual activity, i.e., that it wasn’t the moral code of the Church. But then you say you can’t accept “the moral code of the church given its history of covering up its misdeeds.”

I have an exceedingly strong suspicion that it’s hard for you “to take anything from the moral code of the church”, not because of a few bad apples, but because the moral code of the Church will never bless homosexuality. (I’m not denying that there still are a few bad apples).

Please correct me if I’m wrong.**

Anyway, like it or not, yes, they’re getting married in the eyes of their church and the government. What the Catholic Church says about it is irrelevant.

It won’t be irrelevant to the poor children they adopt; may God protect them from their adoptive parents’ example.
Click to expand...
 
Finite said:
My wife’s nephew is marrying the man he’s spent the last decade with. We received this in our inbox today.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cxjhhl.jpg

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. 🤷
Click to expand...
How lovely. I shall be praying for them.
 
Rau said:
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.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage. That said, marriage is well established in precedent by the Supreme Court as a fundamental or inalienable right, a philosophy upon which the Constitution is based. There is a procedure for amending the Constitution, but unlike many state Constitutions, it is not accomplished by popular vote, and for good reason.
 
Rau said:
I would be pleased if anyone could succinctly explain how the US Constitution treats marriage.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where marriage is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution. But inasmuch as the US Constitution was ordained and established to promote the general welfare, and assuming that equal rights promotes the general welfare, it can be argued that marriage equality is a topic of concern to the Supreme Court of the United States of America;
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see where marriage is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:Hmmm…the Constitution does not mention marriage…right.
But inasmuch as the US Constitution was ordained and established to promote the general welfare, and assuming that equal rights promotes the general welfare, it can be argued that marriage equality is a topic of concern to the Supreme Court of the United States of America;
Click to expand...
A “topic of concern” is pretty broad? I guess you mean the Court is justified in “taking a run” at deciding any question on a “topic of concern”, even when the topic did not rate a mention in the Constitution?

Gee, on that basis, the Supreme Court could decide just about anything which in the opinion of 5 of them was “good for the welfare of the US people”!
 
SavannahGal said:
The US Constitution makes no mention of marriage.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…so I understand!
That said, marriage is well established in precedent by the Supreme Court as a fundamental or inalienable right…
Click to expand...
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that that which was well understood is rather different than that has now been “decided”…
There is a procedure for amending the Constitution, but unlike many state Constitutions, it is not accomplished by popular vote, and for good reason.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how the US Constitution is amended, but much of the world has a process of putting a question to the people, and the people vote Yes or No to decide the matter. Seems a fairly applicable process for SSM, where there is in fact no existing Constitutional basis on which to decide the matter.
 
Rau said:
A “topic of concern” is pretty broad? I guess you mean the Court is justified in “taking a run” at deciding any question on a “topic of concern”, even when the topic did not rate a mention in the Constitution?

Gee, on that basis, the Supreme Court could decide just about anything which in the opinion of 5 of them was “good for the welfare of the US people”!
Click to expand...
You should not be surprised at judicial activism because in examining the 30,161 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, you will find that it has already made many rulings based on personal or political views about public policy rather than strict interpretative fidelity to the Constitution or explicit existing law. Take for example, the case of Bush versus Gore. Where in the US Constitution is it stated that the US Supreme Court has the authority to stop a recount of votes ordered by a particular state? Or take the earlier case of Lochner versus New York, which overturned a NY Law based on the liberty of contract concept.
 
Tomdstone said:
You should not be surprised at judicial activism because in examining the 30,161 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, you will find that it has already made many rulings based on personal or political views about public policy rather than strict interpretative fidelity to the Constitution or explicit existing law. Take for example, the case of Bush versus Gore. Where in the US Constitution is it stated that the US Supreme Court has the authority to stop a recount of votes ordered by a particular state? Or take the earlier case of Lochner versus New York, which overturned a NY Law based on the liberty of contract concept.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate the angst expressed by many at the behavior of your highest court.
 
The Constitution says that the power to define marriage (or how to eat kumquats or catch stray dogs, etc.) is as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people”. Tenth Amendment , 1791.

In short, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

Accordingly, because the Constitution neither delegates the power to define marriage to the United States (i.e., the three branches of the federal government) nor prohibits such power to the states, the power to do so is reserved to the states or people. The Supreme Court has no such power.

That’s just one reason why the minority dissents expressed shock and outrage that five Justices would simply ignore the Constitution so brazenly. As I said in #682, the majority opinion was hardly a brilliant legal brief. It was sophomoric; based on ideology, not law, just as was the Court’s earlier transformation of murder into a constitutional right of a mother to kill all her unborn children, including partially born children.

Both of those court findings are dangerous legal absurdities, and all nine Justices know it. Dangerous because it could cause a Constitutional crises resulting in the breakdown of order. Just how far can the people be pushed? I pray that we don’t have to find out.

But, if the next legal absurdity is the Court’s attempted removal of our constitutional and God-given right to the free exercise of religion (especially regarding the innocence of our children in school), the Left will reap the whirlwind. That’s why the Left hates and fears the so-called Religious Right.
 
Tomdstone said:
You should not be surprised at judicial activism because in examining the 30,161 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, you will find that it has already made many rulings based on personal or political views about public policy rather than strict interpretative fidelity to the Constitution or explicit existing law. Take for example, the case of Bush versus Gore. Where in the US Constitution is it stated that the US Supreme Court has the authority to stop a recount of votes ordered by a particular state? Or take the earlier case of Lochner versus New York, which overturned a NY Law based on the liberty of contract concept.
Click to expand...
Still smarting over Bush versus Gore, huh, Tom? Why? Unlike the issue of SSM, the Supreme Court has constitutional jurisdiction over Federal elections. Just a few days earlier it ruled unanimously in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000).
 
KSU said:
Still smarting over Bush versus Gore, huh, Tom? Why?
Click to expand...
Because the state ordered a recount of ballots and the SCOTUS blocked it, thus overturning the following clause: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people”. Tenth Amendment , 1791.
 
estesbob said:
And the point is?
Click to expand...
Point is, a vigorous, outspoken, militant, and politically active (within tax law constraints) Roman Catholic church, allied with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant denominations, might have:

A. Encouraged federal courts to rule the other way on the matter
B. Encouraged enough American people to lobby Congress for a man-woman marriage amendment to the Constitution
C. Made enforcement of the 6/26 decision impossible
D. All of the above

Instead the Church behaved in a milquetoast fashion. Odd, because, if scripture means anything, the Almighty takes far more displeasure in homosexuality than He does abortion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top