Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[Saint_Frank]

Of course it is entirely new. Even in cultures where homosexuality was accepted, they never confused those sexual activities with marriage. They could plainly see that the next generation of society comes from heterosexual unions. And the next generation of society needs a stable environment to flourish. So they recognized marriage to encourage the parties to remain in the marriage and provide for the children and the next generation of society.

This is just one more step that society has taken to divorce the concepts of babies/pregnancy, sex, and marriage.

Even the name, holy matrimony, indicates what marriage is. “Matrimony” means “making a mother”.

Another interesting fact about the examples of other cultures practicing gay “marriage” that are usually brought up is that those relationships are usually between a man and what we’d now call a transgender/transsexual woman. One of them would take on the role of a woman and live as such. Many cultures around the world have cultural space for males who prefer to live in a feminine role (third gender, etc.), and it was accepted or at least tolerated for them to have relations with men. It wasn’t between two masculine men. I’ve never come across an example of that being accepted in other cultures, at least on the level of an arrangement that could be called “marriage”.

So, no - there’s really no historical precedent for what we’re doing now.

 

[truetofaith]

i attribute that to nepotism and favoritism amongst themselves. is nobel a jew? i am not sure…
who is on the board? who decides who is worthy of the nobel prize? what country is the board located in? do they give the prizes based on a social agenda they want to promote? possibly…
are they like the royal family trying to keep the money in the family and not allowing outsiders in?..most likely yes.

Obama must be Jewish…he got the Peace Prize!

 

[eamonnroma]

Vatican2Rocks!, you are pro-SSM and apparently pro-VC II. Is it your opinion that VC II prepared the way for SSM?

Is there anything wrong with being pro Vatican II?

In fact, a Catholic cannot be ‘anti’ Vatican II - it was after all inspired by the Holy Spirit

 

[Finite]

You wish!

A lot of people felt the way you do when Prohibition became the law of the land. A lot of people were very disappointed when it was repealed. Remember, a “right” granted by a government can be taken away by that government.

Sociologists, economists, behavioral scientists and political scientists have no idea what the cultural effects SSM will have on our society. The judges, especially, have no clue or concern.

The last major change in the institution of marriage occurred centuries ago. That was the gradual end of arranged marriages. This took a few centuries and was not forced on us by law.

If you believe the government, be it next year or in 75 years, is going to suddenly take away a granted right from a group of individuals, I can’t touch you. How you’ve drawn a comparison between getting drunk and gay people marrying other gay people and/or raising children is beyond me, and comprehension in general. There’s no changing your mind, however delusional I believe it to be.

Ultimately, same sex ‘marriage’ will be roundly rejected, most likely with the ‘children’ of same sex couples leading the charge against it. I anticipate that acquisition of children by same sex couples will become something akin to human trafficking. There will be a backlash.

Oh my goodness. This gave me a good chuckle. Human trafficking? First you reject the notion that these people will ever get marriage rights granted, despite public opinion shifting in such a way this was an inevitability. Then you say most of the children they raise grow up to be avidly anti-SSM, despite how rare it is for this to actually happen (it made the news for a reason).

Now gay people will traffic children? Good grief. I know the decision didn’t go the way you had hoped, but just how far are you willing to take this? Your comments are insensitive and insulting. My son and his husband are doing a beautiful job raising my grandchildren. I just pray to god none of your children or grandchildren have the great misfortune of being a homosexual.

Bigotry. There, I said it. Call it cliche, but there it is. You can sugarcoat it with all the so-called “love” you want, but bigotry is still bigotry. You have an astoundingly wrong, warped idea of what gay people are like and “want to do”, particularly parents. It breaks my heart.

 

[Rau]

…Now gay people will traffic children?

What he actually said was: *"I anticipate that acquisition of children by same sex couples will become **something akin to *human trafficking." I believe he is referring to the processes that might be expected to ensue to secure children, potentially involving paid surrogates, overseas adoptions and the like. This happens today of course, primarily for childless couples, but can be expected to increase given every SSM is naturally childless. It is not without notoriety today. You of course can take the alternative view that this will all be well accepted and managed in the future, notwithstanding (or perhaps on account of?) the increased demand.

I know the decision didn’t go the way you had hoped, but just how far are you willing to take this?

I would have thought the decision didn’t go as well as the true SSM advocates had hoped either! A 5-4 decision that, rather than finding any constitutional right to SSM *, decided to make a case for “what should be”, rather than “what is”. Not a ringing endorsement I’d have thought…

Bigotry

It is not bigotry to hold a contrary opinion, or to believe things should be otherwise. Were it so, your rejection of JimG’s beliefs would also be ‘bigoted’.*

 

[ephesians4]

If you believe the government, be it next year or in 75 years, is going to suddenly take away a granted right from a group of individuals, I can’t touch you. How you’ve drawn a comparison between getting drunk and gay people marrying other gay people and/or raising children is beyond me, and comprehension in general. There’s no changing your mind, however delusional I believe it to be.

Oh my goodness. This gave me a good chuckle. Human trafficking? First you reject the notion that these people will ever get marriage rights granted, despite public opinion shifting in such a way this was an inevitability. Then you say most of the children they raise grow up to be avidly anti-SSM, despite how rare it is for this to actually happen (it made the news for a reason).

Now gay people will traffic children? Good grief. I know the decision didn’t go the way you had hoped, but just how far are you willing to take this? Your comments are insensitive and insulting. My son and his husband are doing a beautiful job raising my grandchildren. I just pray to god none of your children or grandchildren have the great misfortune of being a homosexual.

Bigotry. There, I said it. Call it cliche, but there it is. You can sugarcoat it with all the so-called “love” you want, but bigotry is still bigotry. You have an astoundingly wrong, warped idea of what gay people are like and “want to do”, particularly parents. It breaks my heart.

It is not necessarily as completely unheard-of as you might think, even for a person with perfectly nice gay parents (who they admire/love) to want to get away from stuff for their own family.

Some people who grow up in such an environment become quite traditional in their outlook, perhaps even staunch advocates of the traditional family from personal experience, without (unbeknownst to the people they speak to) either “hating” homosexuals at all, or speaking from a position of ignorance. Perhaps they have a much better idea about gay parents than some of the people “schooling” them. You never know.

I think the other poster might have a point about some people being brought back the other way, I have noticed divorce culture has a conservatising effect on some people, in behaviour if not in the will to officially get married - they are together and have children and that is that is that forever, they will never spit on commitment. In the short term, a bad thing if they are personally reluctant to do it officially - but that personal psychological reluctance to marry will die with them, their children will have the example of people who soldier on forever and work on things, and when they marry (why wouldn’t they?) that example will I think do them proud.

I think that when we’re talking about things that are so basic to human existence, the experiment will eventually end, however long that takes.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
Vatican2Rocks!, you are pro-SSM and apparently pro-VC II. Is it your opinion that VC II prepared the way for SSM?

Is there anything wrong with being pro Vatican II?

There certainly has been a lot wrong after a group of “pro-VC II” people created their own version of VC II and then, in the name of being pro-VC II, destroyed Catholic liturgy, art, education, architecture, and music in order to replace those treasures with the liberal horrors we have seen develop soon after the council. When old timers like me objected, we were told by the “pro-VC II” folks to shut up, sit down and don’t be anti-VC II; i.e., we were lied to and told not to presume to know better than the Holy Spirit. It is only recently (in Church years) that Rome has begun to drag the Church establishment kicking and screaming away from that "hermeneutic of rupture.” If you have time, read this: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296

In fact, a Catholic cannot be ‘anti’ Vatican II - it was after all inspired by the Holy Spirit

**VC II may well have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to prepare the Church PASTORILY for life in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, a lot of folks who participated had their own ideas about how to do that. So, how did those years of effort by the Council preparing the Church for modern life work out for us? What we got for the most part was the “Spirit of Vatican Council II.” ; hardly what the Holy Spirit had in mind.

Go ahead and show me, eamonnroma, just where a Pope has declared that the nightmare of rupture I referred to above, or the mishmash of concepts resulting from the misrepresentation of the documents of VC II were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can lead us to water, but because He never forces us to drink, a lot of “pro-VC II” people drank something else. **

 

[Path_Finder]

It’s interesting that one can file until July 21st for a re-hearing on this, I just saw this at one charitable organization. Long-shot indeed though. Nonetheless, some action is being taken.

Here this talks about it: wksu.org/news/story/43567

Faith 2 Action’s Janet Folger Porter says two of the justices who voted in favor of allowing states to recognize marriage of same-sex couples, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, should have re-cused themselves from hearing the Ohio case.

“You cannot be impartial and oversee homosexual weddings. So they violated the law and yet they sat on the case. They didn’t recuse themselves and for that reason, the case is not valid. It is an illegal ruling,” Folger Porter says.

But a spokesman for state Attorney General Mike DeWine says he won’t ask the nation’s high court to rehear the case. Dan Tierney says it takes five justices to grant a motion to rehear and notes none of the justices have voluntarily recused themselves. Tierney says this issue was raised earlier in the case and yet it moved forward.

news-journal.com/news/2015/jul/10/holdouts-on-same-sex-marriage-could-face-multiple-/

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you believe the government, be it next year or in 75 years, is going to suddenly take away a granted right from a group of individuals, I can’t touch you. How you’ve drawn a comparison between getting drunk and gay people marrying other gay people and/or raising children is beyond me, and comprehension in general. There’s no changing your mind, however delusional I believe it to be.

My goodness, you have a reading comprehension problem.

Firstly any right GRANTED by government can be revoked by government. Our Constitution defends our “God-given inalienable rights”. Government cannot revoke those. Our Constitution makes no mention of marriage at all. Therefore the Supreme Court CREATED a right. They can “un-create” it.

Secondly, my comparing Prohibition to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision is very clear. Essentially with Prohibition, we had a bad amendment repealed…therefore we can have bad decision revoked.

 

[KSU]

It’s interesting that one can file until July 21st for a re-hearing on this, I just saw this at one charitable organization. Long-shot indeed though.

The problem, insofar as I know, is that only fairness and decency would have led Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the case; i.e., I don’t think there is a legal requirement to recuse oneself even in the case of an obvious conflict of interest due to lack of impartiality.

Nobody should be shocked that liberals are not motivated by fairness or decency.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

The problem, insofar as I know, is that only fairness and decency would have led Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the case; i.e., I don’t think there is a legal requirement to recuse oneself even in the case of an obvious conflict of interest due to lack of impartiality.

I see the word “fairness” thrown around a lot. Who is this ruling not fair to?

 

[Rau]

I see the word “fairness” thrown around a lot. Who is this ruling not fair to?

Fairness does not relate to the ruling. I believe the poster was referring to the process, whereby a judge is sitting on a case with an already formed view, which may prejudice ability to rule on the basis of evidence alone. I think that standard is a difficult one to insist on in a case such as this. In all likelihood, all the justices come to the case with a pre-existing view. Quite different to the typical lower court cases where the facts of the case are new and unique.

It’s easy to see how a different bench could so easily have produced a different ruling. Especially so when the ruling is not so much an assessment of what the constitution says, but a vote on opinions about what “should be”.

 

[JimG]

The ruling is unfair to children, who continue to be subject to commoditization at the hands of adults. Marriage is intended by nature to unite man and woman to each other and to their children who are born of the union.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by Darryl Revok:
I see the word “fairness” thrown around a lot. Who is this ruling not fair to?

Fairness does not relate to the ruling. I believe the poster was referring to the process, whereby a judge is sitting on a case with an already formed view, which may prejudice ability to rule on the basis of evidence alone. I think that standard is a difficult one to insist on in a case such as this. In all likelihood, all the justices come to the case with a pre-existing view. Quite different to the typical lower court cases where the facts of the case are new and unique.

It’s easy to see how a different bench could so easily have produced a different ruling. Especially so when the ruling is not so much an assessment of what the constitution says, but a vote on opinions about what “should be”.

Thank you, Rau. You stated my point well.

The following attempts to make the legal case for recusal, and Bryan Fischer might even be correct. But that means little given the Court’s current makeup afa.net/the-stand/government/ginsburg-and-kagan-must-recuse-themselves-on-gay-marriage-case/

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The ruling is unfair to children, who continue to be subject to commoditization at the hands of adults. Marriage is intended by nature to unite man and woman to each other and to their children who are born of the union.

Umh…are not children in same sex homes usually children that are adopted and don’t otherwise have a permanent home? Would having a stable home with same sex guardians be seen as less fair than staying in less stable environments hoping for adoption?

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Fairness does not relate to the ruling. I believe the poster was referring to the process, whereby a judge is sitting on a case with an already formed view, which may prejudice ability to rule on the basis of evidence alone. I think that standard is a difficult one to insist on in a case such as this. In all likelihood, all the justices come to the case with a pre-existing view. Quite different to the typical lower court cases where the facts of the case are new and unique.

But if that’s a standard for “fairness”, then shouldn’t the Catholic members of the bench recuse themselves? If they strictly follow Catholic moral doctrine, then that would, by definition, prejudice the ability to rule on the basis of evidence alone.

For instance, after the SSM decision, there was a thread arguing about the excommunication of Kennedy for going against Catholic social teachings in his decisions. There’s a bit of contradiction going on in that thread and in this thread.

 

[JimG]

Umh…are not children in same sex homes usually children that are adopted and don’t otherwise have a permanent home? Would having a stable home with same sex guardians be seen as less fair than staying in less stable environments hoping for adoption?

Children who are placed into homes headed by same sex couples are placed in an inherently disordered living situation. For that reason Catholic adoption agencies do not place children in such environments. Some Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because the state insisted that they must violate moral doctrine, which they will not do. Closing Catholic adoption agencies harms society.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Children who are placed into homes headed by same sex couples are placed in an inherently disordered living situation.

Is that “disordered” state the only “unfair” condition that children in same-sex homes experience over those that don’t get adopted?

 

[KSU]

But if that’s a standard for “fairness”, then shouldn’t the Catholic members of the bench recuse themselves? If they strictly follow Catholic moral doctrine, then that would, by definition, prejudice the ability to rule on the basis of evidence alone.

For instance, after the SSM decision, there was a thread arguing about the excommunication of Kennedy for going against Catholic social teachings in his decisions. There’s a bit of contradiction going on in that thread and in this thread.

Darryl, you are confusing an already formed view regarding religion with an already formed view regarding constitutional law. The Justices take two oaths regarding the latter, none, of course, regarding the former.
supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

In any case, there is no Catholic doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

Darryl, you are confusing an already formed view regarding religion with an already formed view regarding constitutional law. The Justices take two oaths regarding the latter, none, of course, regarding the former.
supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

The issue was about “impartiality”. Wouldn’t Catholic doctrine lead one to be impartial towards the issue of same-sex marriage, regardless of the underlying legality?

In any case, there is no Catholic doctrine that conflicts with the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

That’s a huge qualifier, and pretty unhelpful as a framework for legal interpretation.