Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[Rau]

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.

If a Catholic Judge was able and willing to rule without regard to the beliefs of his faith, then presumably no need to recuse. He may do so if concerned about appearances.

 

[KSU]

Posted by KSU:
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/oa…ffice2009.aspx

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

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?

**I think you mean “partial”, not “impartial.” If you mean “partial”, the answer is yes, if the subject at issue was theology. The answer is no, if the subject at issue was constitutional law, which of course it is. Remember the two oaths. **

[With regard to the Constitution AS WRITTEN.] That’s a huge qualifier, and pretty unhelpful as a framework for legal interpretation.
**
Really? Then what unwritten constitutional law required this wrongly decided decision?**

 

[Tomdstone]

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

But it is the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the USA that is the law of the land.

 

[KSU]

But it is the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the USA that is the law of the land.

I know, but that was not what we were discussing. We were discussing recusal.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I think you mean “partial”, not “impartial.” If you mean “partial”, the answer is yes, if the subject at issue was theology. The answer is no, if the subject at issue was constitutional law, which of course it is. Remember the two oaths.

Then if they didn’t decide on the basis of theology, then what’s the problem? What do you care?

 

[KSU]

Then if they didn’t decide on the basis of theology, then what’s the problem? What do you care?

The problem, of course, is that only four Justices decided on the basis of constitutional law, while five Justices decided not on the basis of what the authors of the Constitution actually wrote but on the basis of what the five thought the law should be. They have no shame and no respect for the Constitution! And you should care about that.

 

[Tomdstone]

The problem, of course, is that only four Justices decided on the basis of constitutional law, while five Justices decided not on the basis of what the authors of the Constitution actually wrote but on the basis of what the five thought the law should be. They have no shame and no respect for the Constitution! And you should care about that.

That is your opinion which is not shared by many in the LGBT community.

 

[KSU]

That is your opinion which is not shared by many in the LGBT community.

**That’s understandable,Tom. Many in the LGBT community value their lifestyle over both man’s law and God’s law, so they SAY they do not share my opinion of the law. Some don’t want to force themselves to think about it objectively. I believe, however, many if not most know the truth.

My heart goes out to them (including a few friends), but I know man’s law and God’s law, so I can’t give them what they want most: acceptance of their disordered lifestyle. And I can’t acquiesce to their demand that I give up my religious freedoms granted by the Constitution.

And whether you admit it or not, I know you understand what I just said.**

 

[Tomdstone]

**That’s understandable,Tom. Many in the LGBT community value their lifestyle over both man’s law and God’s law, so they SAY they do not share my opinion of the law. Some don’t want to force themselves to think about it objectively. I believe, however, many if not most know the truth.

My heart goes out to them (including a few friends), but I know man’s law and God’s law, so I can’t give them what they want most: acceptance of their disordered lifestyle. And I can’t acquiesce to their demand that I give up my religious freedoms granted by the Constitution.

And whether you admit it or not, I know you understand what I just said.**

Constitutional law is not the same as God’s law.

 

[DCNBILL]

Constitutional law is not the same as God’s law.

Alas, never have truer words been written.

 

[KSU]

Constitutional law is not the same as God’s law.

So what is your point?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Constitutional law is not the same as God’s law.

Actually they can be the same.

The Supreme Court has held that:

The Establishment Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances, the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc. because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue.* McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).*

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I’ve seen a few people throw around the issue of secession about the whole SSM issue. Is this really the hill you want to die on? What’s going to be your rallying cry? “We shall fight in the discos, we shall fight in the hair salons, we shall never surrender!”

 

[Rau]

I’ve seen a few people throw around the issue of secession about the whole SSM issue. Is this really the hill you want to die on? What’s going to be your rallying cry? “We shall fight in the discos, we shall fight in the hair salons, we shall never surrender!”

Who has said this? Better to address that question to someone expressing the position to which you refer.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

If the individual is to be supreme, arguably it would be better not to form a civic society at all.

The premise behind civic society is that individuals are not supreme.

ICXC NIKA

AND when it comes to marriage, INDIVIDUALS, the two parties to a marriage, ARE supreme. If they are not supreme then their marriage is invalid. if one or both individuals are not consenting ADULTS and/or are impaired due to coercion of some sort then they are not FREE to consent and are not in full possession of their total personal authority on such an important lifelong decision.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Are you really Catholic? Honestly? I will ask the question once and accept your answer in good faith, but on the face of it I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the way you are choosing to word things in the quoted text with the idea that you’re a practicing Christian. Can you see why?

YES I am really catholic. Maybe you don’t know catholics and the teaching of the church the way you think you do…ie the way we actually teach it. Maybe you don’t understand the teachings of the church as well as you think you do. if you study the bible and read the catechism and read canon law I don’t see how anyone couldn’t come to the conclusion I have. Also, if you pray the rosary and go to 2 college level classes: one on marriage and the other on human sexuality, I don’t see how these additional helps couldn’t help you in truth.

if you live in the spirit you are above the law and the things you are saying are law based. which jesus abolished.

john the apostle constantly urged people to love one another. if you love your neighbor then you want them to have the good you have. if you are jealous and envious, breaking the commandment of the law–thou shalt not covet-- then you don’t have their good in mind because you don’t want them to have what is theirs, which is love.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Additional commentary by Vatican2rocks! IN REPLY TO:

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

also one day i noticed in my bible which i’ve had since the 80’s the footnotes state that there are **3 differing opinions **amongst the prophets as to what happened in sodom and gomorrah. the bible i have is an nab.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/18

• [18:20] The immorality of the cities was already hinted at in 13:13, when Lot made his choice to live there. The “outcry” comes from the victims of the injustice and violence rampant in the city, which will shortly be illustrated in the treatment of the visitors. The outcry of the Hebrews under the harsh treatment of Pharaoh (Ex 3:7) came up to God who reacts in anger at mistreatment of the poor (cf. Ex 22:21–23; Is 5:7). Sodom and Gomorrah became types of sinful cities in biblical literature. Is 1:9–10; 3:9 sees their sin as lack of social justice, Ez 16:46–51, as disregard for the poor, and Jer 23:14, as general immorality. In the Genesis story, the sin is violation of the sacred duty of hospitality by the threatened rape of Lot’s guests.

 

[Rau]

…lot had problems before sodom and gomorrah and he slept with his daughters–incest. how is this ok and homosexual marriage is not? the characters of the bible are certainly not heroic and worthy of imitation.

Which characters do you refer to? Remember that the Old Testament addresses events in a period of time when God was drawing a people to himself. God chose not to “drop” the entirety of the moral law on the people from the earliest prophet!

when you get married you can’t be confused or uncertain on your wedding day. you have to be 100% sure or don’t do it.

That’s good advice.

God …his will doesn’t count…yours does. you get to override him when it comes to marriage. and should.

This statement appears to misunderstand the nature of the will of God, or perhaps you are just using loose language. The “Will of God” cannot be the wrong course in anyone’s life. An individual’s “feeling” about the Will of God is not necessarily the Will of God - perhaps that is what you are saying?

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

Which characters do you refer to? Remember that the Old Testament addresses events in a period of time when God was drawing a people to himself. God chose not to “drop” the entirely of the moral law on the people from the earliest prophet!

That’s good advice.

This statement appears to misunderstand the nature of the will of God, or perhaps you are just using loose language. The “Will of God” cannot be the wrong course in anyone’s life. An individual’s “feeling” about the Will of God is not necessarily the Will of God - perhaps that is what you are saying?

If god’s will is, as you say, for me to marry someone i am not in love with and/or not attracted to I GET TO OVERRIDE HIS WILL. It is unreasonable coercion to claim that I SHOULD marry so and so because someone said it is God’s Will for me to do so. I am not a slave of god or man. I am a human being with free will and i have the right not to contract marriage to someone i am not in love with nor attracted to. I have the right to exercise free will when i am told by others to marry someone against my will because it is supposedly god’s will. canon law is very clear that a person whose free will has been impeded due to coercion is likely to get an annulment, for example and this right here is an example of coercion via spiritual abuse of authority which is false authority. God is not the minister of the sacrament. he is merely a witness. there is no sacrament when force is involved.

God cannot and will not force anyone to marry someone against their will…that’s the arena of satan, the ignorant, sexual predators, and bullies.

 

[Rau]

If god’s will is as you say for me to marry someone i am not in love with or attracted to I GET TO OVERRIDE HIS WILL. It is unreasonable coercion to claim that I SHOULD marry so and so because someone said it is God’s Will for me to do so. I am not a slave of god. I am a human being with free will and i cannot exercise free will if i am told by others to marry someone against my will because it is supposedly god’s will. canon law is very clear that a person whose free will has been impeded is likely to get an annulment. God is not the minister of the sacrament. he is merely a witness.

I’ve not said anything about the specifics of God’s will for you (as I can’t know that, others can’t know that, and I doubt you can either). What I have said is that God’s will is undoubtedly good for you, by virtue of it being God’s will. We follow God’s Will by making the best, virtuous choices we can - God doesn’t send us Emails advising his Will, which we then weigh up with other considerations.

Your post repeats your earlier statements and but does not address what I’ve put to you - which is about the nature of God’s Will.