S
St_Francis
Guest
You are right; I misunderstood what they wrote. The older children are those of one of the two women in the couple.
- Status
S
SeannyM
Guest
4 cases about equal protection. If you are curious about how those cases apply, you are free to read the obergefell opinion, and Judge Walker’s opinion… Or any of the 21 other judges who ruled in favor of marriage equality.
I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand that they apply the precedence by comparing the principals of the cases… I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to user stand that cases don’t have to be about the exact same thing to be controlling law…In fact if they were about the exact same thing, there wouldn’t be much need for multiple cases.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
You’re right; I am sure that weak argument has saved many a person from the flames of purgatory or hell over the centuries.
God’s stance isn’t up for debate, unless you suddenly stopped being a Catholic. If so, change your profile info so as not to lead others astray into your way of thinking.
Church teachings and God’s will always matter in all things, including civil law. Your desire to cower behind laws as though God is really that stupid is silly.
S
SeannyM
Guest
I’m not Roman Catholic. My church performs gay marriage. And no, church teaching does not… In fact cannot matter in civil law.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Yes Napoleon is right as to.this.not.standing an appeal. The reason is.Because there is a lot.of case law throughout the US stating that homosexuality is.not a reason to.remove a child. You cannot remove a child.based solely on sexual orientation, and now after the SCoOTUS imposed SS M on everyone, little.less.
S
SeannyM
Guest
Even if you’re opposed to gay marriage, you should be able to see that people willing to adopt siblings to keep them together are important. And this couple adopting them is better than the alternatives. It is important to keep siblings together. In Utah 185 children aged out of the system in 2012. Of children who age out, less than half graduate from high school. They have a significantly higher incidence of unemployment, early pregnancy, homelessness, and incarceration. So yeah, let’s save them by keeping them away from the gays. 
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Whenever people say this it reminds me of Jeb Bartlet’s response in the West Wing:
“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important 'cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”
Indeed, who knows what horrors would rain down upon us if the Judicial Branch were allowed to run roughshod over the Constituion in favor of a system where Judges set up little fiefdoms to rule based on their religious beliefs rather than the law. Snatching children from the homes of loving and capable parents is just the beginning.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
He is an “American Catholic.” They will claim, contra all evidence, that they are the true “catholic” church because of their “inclusivity” policy. The name of the group appears to have been deliberately chosen to confuse. Hell hath no fury like an ‘inclusive’ scorned, apparently.
In their view, any father, including God the Father, who would hold “My house, my rules!” cannot be a true father. As far as American Catholics (disambiguation alert) are concerned, a real father must necessarily subscribe to “My house, do what you fancy,” in order to be “inclusive” in the relevant sense of “catholic” as espoused by The American Catholic Church.
The image that comes to mind here is one of Jesus chasing the money-changers from the Temple while shouting, “My Father’s house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves!” I suppose the germane question would be: “What would Jesus have done if the ‘businesses’ plying their trade in the Temple were selling “favours” instead of exchanging money? Or lawyers selling fault-free-worry-free-the-kids-will-get-over-it divorce papers? Or Planned Parenthood selling abortions and baby parts? Or political lobby groups buying the services of politicians?”
I suppose it is now time to see which church is better at the old standby game of “Inclusive or Not?” To play well, you see, requires that the church seeking the title of “catholic” check any concept of ethics or moral compass at the door before playing because to squirrel in such old-fashioned ideas or devices imposes overly severe restrictions on the game. To be “catholic” is to be “inclusive” in the sense of “permissive.” Period. :nope:
S
SeannyM
Guest
I love that episode! But my favorite West Wing quote is on Election Day, when Sam says something about winning and they tell him he has to go outside and spit and curse. Toby says “you wanna tempt the wrath of whatever from high atop the thing?”
S
SeannyM
Guest
You are grossly distorting/outright lying about our faith, and you are being insulting. That is both uncharitable and against forum rules.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And if “church teaching” is based upon moral law, then, I suppose, it still “does not…In fact cannot matter in civil law?”
In effect, morality is totally irrelevant to civil law, in your view.
How is “civil law” then determined to be correct, appropriate or in any sense justifiable?
Oh, here… let me guess… “the will of the people.”
Meaning? That no matter what “the people” determine it will be necessarily right?
No criteria nor concern with regard to judging whether “the people” are on the right track or have made the right determination? How is THAT assessed?
Not by free and open debate about the nature of TRUTH or the GOOD because those are matters of “church teaching” and should not be of any concern when promulgating civil law, then?
S
St_Francis
Guest
I can see tolerating (in the true sense of the word) consenting adults doing what they want in private, but no one has a right to do that which is biologically impossible.
I do understand that according to the current laws in the US, the judge will be overturned on this.
S
SeannyM
Guest
Church interpretation of morality, especially in areas where churches disagree is irrelevant to civil law.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Every interpretation of morality is relevant if we are concerned to arrive at just and moral laws.
There is no presumption that churches cannot have anything to say with regard to morality – which is the only legitimate basis for any law.
Your view is logically fallacious. It assumes that because churches disagree in some respects with regard to morality that they, therefore, have nothing relevant to say about morality at all.
It also presumes that individuals who subscribe to the moral principles of a particular church only do so because they are members of that church. It is, in other words, your attempt to shut down those who have a moral perspective that differs from yours on the grounds that their perspective comes from their religious belief but that yours does not – ostensibly because your religious beliefs do not determine your morality (a tenet of your church,) but the morality of every other religious believer is based in their religion and, therefore, is not relevant. It is a double standard masquerading as a legitimate political view.
“Inclusivity” only counts, apparently, when it can be used as a hammer against religious beliefs, but is easily discarded when political issues are at stake. We don’t “include” religious types, but EXCLUDE them when making decisions that matter legally, politically and morally. And we do this as a tenet of our religion. All bases are covered if you are pandering to a particular political ideology, I suppose.
S
SeannyM
Guest
My view assumes that here in the US we have a separation of church and state.
B
Brendan
Guest
Is there to be a separation of law and morality?
Is the morality of a law relevant, or simply that it was passed by the appropriate legal authority to be sufficient?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I am all for determining civil law based upon sound morality. I am not for dismissing sound morality merely because of its association to churches or because churches happen to hold a particular moral view. Which seems to be your MO.
If you try to dismiss the moral views of others by finding some superficial way of turning them into “religious” interpretations of morality on the grounds that those views are ONLY “Church interpretations of morality,” then your argument is clearly specious and I doubt you could give anything like a plausible accounting of what the grounds for legitimate morality (or civil laws) are in any case.
What, in your view, is the difference between a person’s moral views and their religious views that would make their religious views, but not their moral views, “irrelevant to civil law?”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Which means what?
That religious views should be illegal?
Or that any moral view – if it is subscribed to by any religion – should be abandoned in favour of moral views not held by any religious group?
Freedom from religion at all costs including freedom from all moral views tainted by any religion?
What if the moral views (and, therefore, the jurisprudence) of a particular religion is far superior, morally speaking, to the reigning legal system of a people? Are you claiming that the inferior legal system should hold sway merely because it is not religious?
How did that work out for the communist regimes of the last century or the hundreds of millions that died in the genocides as a result?
What does “separation” mean, exactly?
That everyone should pretend to be rabid secular atheists even if they are not rabid secular atheists and even if rabid secular atheism is shown to be an inferior belief system?
What about the “free market of ideas?” Should it truly be free and inclusive in the sense of permitting all views to be heard, or should some be disqualified purely on the basis that they are “religious” and, therefore, not permitted to voice their views by fiat?
It appears difficult to reconcile your endorsement of “inclusive” as a highly regarded quality of the American Catholic Church, with your doctrine of “separation” with regard to disinfranchising a whole segment (a majority in fact) of the population from being “included” in the political process because they have “religious” views.
M
Marie5890
Guest
The News just broke…
Judge recinded his own order. The kid will remain with the gay couple
Judge recinded his own order. The kid will remain with the gay couple
S
SeannyM
Guest
People of various different beliefs can and do participate in our justice system. But when they are in a position of power like a judge, they must follow our established civil laws. We don’t codify specific religious beliefs because we are a plural society. Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land… Not the bible, or the Torah, or the Koran. Our government is required to remain neutral on religious matters and cannot endorse any religion. That is what separation of church and state means. It has worked well in the past, and will continue to work well. No one is excluded from participating in the government as long as they are willing to follow the law.Which means what?
That religious views should be illegal?
Or that any moral view – if it is subscribed to by any religion – should be abandoned in favour of moral views not held by any religious group?
Freedom from religion at all costs including freedom from all moral views tainted by any religion?
What if the moral views (and, therefore, the jurisprudence) of a particular religion is far superior, morally speaking, to the reigning legal system of a people? Are you claiming that the inferior legal system should hold sway merely because it is not religious?
What does “separation” mean, exactly?
That everyone should pretend to be rabid secular atheists even if they are not rabid secular atheists and even if rabid secular atheism is shown to be an inferior belief system?
What about the “free market of ideas?” Should it truly be free and inclusive in the sense of permitting all views to be heard, or should some be disqualified purely on the basis that they are “religious” and, therefore, not permitted to voice their views by fiat?
It appears difficult to reconcile your endorsement of “inclusive” as a highly regarded quality of the American Catholic Church, with your doctrine of “separation” with regard to disinfranchising a whole segment (a majority in fact) of the population from being “included” in the political process because they have “religious” views.
- Status