White House shines rainbow colors to hail same-sex marriage ruling

[meltzerboy]

Roberts was appointed by George W. Bush. Roberts voted against SSM.

Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan and was the one Republican appointment which crossed the line and voted pro SSM.

Kennedy was also the 2nd of two Catholics.

The fact that Justice Kennedy crosses the line is a good thing, I believe. He is the ONLY swing vote on the Supreme Court, with the exception of Chief Justice Roberts once or twice. The other justices will vote based strictly on political ideology, either conservative or liberal, which I think is a bad thing. It is as though their minds are already made up before the case is presented. I would prefer all justices on the Supreme Court be moderate Independents.

Retired Justice David Souter was also appointed by a Republican, former Pres. George H.W. Bush, and turned out to be quite liberal in his opinions on the Court.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes I know they are fully welcome to go into a Catholic church’s pews and pray and sing and listen to the readings and a homily and worship. I never said they weren’t. I used to be one of them to do so.

in the episcopal church it used to be the only requirement to receive communion was you had to be baptized and I am not sure that is still required or not.

 

[lax16]

Very pragmatic of you!

But if your child were convulsing and it were a choice between praying or getting him to a doctor? Would you pray first then call 911?

Obviously a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates why I feel that statements such as “faith is greater than science” are overly simplistic and needlessly confrontational, not to mention ungrateful to scientists. Many of whom, of course, are catholic.

Well, as a mother of four, it is not so hypothetical…and I do pray and dial at the same time. Actually, the prayer begins immediately before my hand can reach the phone.

Did someone say “faith is greater than science”? I didn’t see that. Science and religion compliment one another.

For a clear understanding of faith and reason, I highly recommend this website and the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer magiscenter.com/

 

[EasterJoy]

All or none. All treated under the same rules. If the White house can have prayer meetings and crucifixes, why can they not have rainbow lights or menorahs?

If they can celebrate Christmas, why not this?

Honest question: has there ever been a Muslim in high enough office to be at the White House for breakfast? Barring conspiracy theories about Obama, about which I have heard far too much TYVM.

The rainbow lights are such a hypocritical case of sucking up to a movement that Obama was in opposition to just a few years ago that it makes anyone who has listened to him over the past ten or twenty years want to lose their lunch. It is not as if the lights indicate one of his daughters having the first same-sex marriage at the White House. His opinion “evolved” right along with the Gallop polls. It is a desperate ploy to net a bit of relevancy before he limps out of office. I do not know what historian is going to put any weight at all in that little stunt as anything other than a late jump onto the popular bandwagon.

There are probably Muslims in key positions at the White House, just as there are probably atheists and Jews and Episcopalians. What of it? As for Catholics, Joe Biden counts as a Catholic at the White House, even though he is a notorious advocate in favor of making abortion freely available, encouraging homosexuals to see their sexual attractions as the equivalent of heterosexual inclinations, forcing the provision of contraception and euthanasia as items of “health care,” and so on. No one can judge the state of Joe Biden’s soul, but by his scandalous outward behavior he meets the requirements for disqualifying himself from receiving Holy Communion in public. If he is what we get if we have a Catholic in the vice presidency, why on earth should a Muslim worry us?

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, if its such a big victory at the white house, why not make a new holiday for it? Nationally recognized of course. That would be the next step for the lgbt movement, right…? Because the fight cant just end here ya know…

Why are you giving your opposition the idea? Don’t you know they read CAF?

 

[EasterJoy]

Very pragmatic of you!

But if your child were convulsing and it were a choice between praying or getting him to a doctor? Would you pray first then call 911?

Obviously a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates why I feel that statements such as “faith is greater than science” are overly simplistic and needlessly confrontational, not to mention ungrateful to scientists. Many of whom, of course, are catholic.

Let’s get a little more pragmatic. What if it is a choice between believing that intercessory prayer has brought about medical miracles or refusing to believe what science cannot explain? That, after all, is what is meant by faith being greater than science. One is a reliable source of truth, while the other is a powerful tool for predicting patterns in nature and using them to human advantage. Let us not confuse one with the other.

 

[10gr8kids]

Did someone say “faith is greater than science”? I didn’t see that. Science and religion compliment one another.

For a clear understanding of faith and reason, I highly recommend this website and the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer magiscenter.com/

Yes, I did. I agree they compliment eachother, I still believe faith is greater. After all, science may tell us how, but faith can move mountains.

 

[lax16]

All or none. All treated under the same rules. If the White house can have prayer meetings and crucifixes, why can they not have rainbow lights or menorahs?

If they can celebrate Christmas, why not this?

Honest question: has there ever been a Muslim in high enough office to be at the White House for breakfast? Barring conspiracy theories about Obama, about which I have heard far too much TYVM.

I totally agree with you that all faiths, or none, should be celebrated in public areas.

However, gay marriage is not a religious issue and frankly, I don’t know why people say it is. Let me say, I know of several men that are not religious, do not attend any church on a regular basis, and they do not support ssm. They will tell you it is unnatural and doesn’t make sense. I do not consider this issue to be only a religious discussion.

I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that Obama did not have a Muslim prayer breakfast and it is a conspiracy theory? I have not heard that but will double check that fact.

 

[lax16]

Yes, I did. I agree they compliment eachother, I still believe faith is greater. After all, science may tell us how, but faith can move mountains.

You are so right! I had my faith before I learned about science and to think of all the Christians throughout the centuries who lived on faith alone.

 

[lax16]

Why are you giving your opposition the idea? Don’t you know they read CAF?

Doesn’t everybody?

 

[TMC]

All or none. All treated under the same rules. If the White house can have prayer meetings and crucifixes, why can they not have rainbow lights or menorahs?

If they can celebrate Christmas, why not this?

Honest question: has there ever been a Muslim in high enough office to be at the White House for breakfast? Barring conspiracy theories about Obama, about which I have heard far too much TYVM.

To answer your question - yes, there have been two Muslim Congressmen. Both are obviously senior enough to have been invited to the White House, not sure if they have actually been. There may be a few Muslims in senior appointed positions in government, but frankly none come to mind.

On the broader point, of course you are correct. The White House can (and has) recognized a wide variety of religious and secular celebrations from many faiths and viewpoints (under both the current previous Presidents).

 

[SuperLuigi]

Obama is not unique in changing his view. Much of America has evolved on the SSM issue in just a few short yrs.

It’s pretty obvious that President Obama changed his opinion on so-called gay “marriage” for political expediency more than once.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Honest question: has there ever been a Muslim in high enough office to be at the White House for breakfast? Barring conspiracy theories about Obama, about which I have heard far too much TYVM.

Islam in general is growing its influence in the secular world. I doubt so-called gay “marriage” will be able to withstand it. Islam is much closer to the Truth and natural law.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Is your point that “evolving” Church teaching will bring them home?

Not at all. Even though I welcomed the new Pope’s softer tone and humility and his attempts to add to the discussion beyond a few issues, I don’t expect Catholics to evolve on much. It’s one reason I don’t practice. My point was merely after numbers were brought up in regard to other faith communities and problems they face, that while yes the CC baptizes a lot of children and gains members for life, that there is still a huge numbers problem in your church as well when as little as 25% actually follow Church teaching and attend Mass weekly. And I just know many of the younger Catholics in my extended family, though having attended Catholic schools and Mass during their formative yrs, are not all that into the faith now that they are in their 20s and 30s. I’m sure however there are exceptions across the spectrums. The bishop of the Episcopal diocese where I live has allowed priests to decide whether to perform ceremonies and sign marriage licenses for SS couples since January when marriage equality came to my state. And from what I’ve been told by church officials, there has been little dissension and no exodus of churches.

 

[Sy_Noe]

in the episcopal church it used to be the only requirement to receive communion was you had to be baptized and I am not sure that is still required or not.

Hi 7 Sorrows, I’m not Episcopalian although I have a special place within my heart for TEC. And actually what you say is one reason why I do. But I wouldn’t be the best person to ask about their communion requirements. My last understanding as I understood it, was that officially if one was baptized in the Trinity, that yes communion was open to them. I’m not sure. There may be churches that broaden the invitation. I only know an Episcopal priest once told me that no one is interrogating anyone to turn them away. That if one feels called by God to receive, then so be it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Hi 7 Sorrows, I’m not Episcopalian although I have a special place within my heart for TEC. And actually what you say is one reason why I do. But I wouldn’t be the best person to ask about their communion requirements. My last understanding as I understood it, was that officially if one was baptized in the Trinity, that yes communion was open to them. I’m not sure. There may be churches that broaden the invitation. I only know an Episcopal priest once told me that no one is interrogating anyone to turn them away. That if one feels called by God to receive, then so be it.

That sounds about right. The Episcopal Church welcomes you was their “slogan”. Many nice people in the Episcopal church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That sounds about right. The Episcopal Church welcomes you was their “slogan”. Many nice people in the Episcopal church.

Yes there are from my experience which granted has only thus far been thru correspondence, watching podcasts of sermons or videos, and visiting an outreach for the homeless and needy to make donations. I haven’t actually ever yet attended a service. But there are nice people in Catholic parishes as well.

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s pretty obvious that President Obama changed his opinion on so-called gay “marriage” for political expediency more than once.

I doubt he was ever anything but in favor of SSM. Or is that what you mean?

 

[Midwest88]

Obama sold himself as more moderate, and he has turned out to be much different than what he was selling. A bait and switch. Romney had already done more than one bait and switch in his political career, once supporting “full equality”, which people in Massachusetts took as supporting SSM. Then in his presidential bid, putting off stating his stance, until finally standing with the party line. They are both cut from the same cloth, and I couldn’t determine at the time I voted what was truth and what was pandering to get votes. Obama had the chance to show his true colors, quite literally, now lit up for all to see. Romney is still in the shadows.

David Axelrod admitted that Obama lied about his stance on marriage during his first election, saying that Obama supported same-sex “marriage” all along and that him admitting otherwise was just to get nominated. There’s a document of Obama voting “yes” on same-sex “marriage” on a social issue ballot when it came to newly elected senators.

Also, isn’t Romney a practicing Mormon? Do Mormons believe in same-sex “marriage” or is Romney a social “progressive” in a libertarian stance?

 

[meltzerboy]

David Axelrod admitted that Obama lied about his stance on marriage during his first election, saying that Obama supported same-sex “marriage” all along and that him admitting otherwise was just to get nominated. There’s a document of Obama voting “yes” on same-sex “marriage” on a social issue ballot when it came to newly elected senators.

Also, isn’t Romney a practicing Mormon? Do Mormons believe in same-sex “marriage” or is Romney a social “progressive” in a libertarian stance?

I don’t think any of us really knows what Romney believes, particularly on social issues, perhaps not even himself. He has the ability to morph into whatever is at the time most appealing to his constituency.