Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    I'm asking you why. Not what the law is.
    Understood.

    The reason I would disagree with gay marriage is because I support the position of the Church,

    Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President of Catholic Bishops’ Conference


    Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

    The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

    Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.


    more,

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
      Understood.

      The reason I would disagree with gay marriage is because I support the position of the Church,

      Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President of Catholic Bishops’ Conference


      Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

      The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

      Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.


      more,

      http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm
      Why does your Catholic Church get to decide who marries? Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others marry.
      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        And?
        That's the point.. The Fourteenth Amendment has become the "Miracle Amendment."
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          So by that logic we shouldn't have given women the vote because now we can't deny it to children.
          There is actually a better example. If you make it legal to have sex with an 18 year old or 16 year old how can we deny the right to have sex with 13 year olds or 10 year olds? (and for those playing at home, both of those have been legal in the US at various times).
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • Anyone else notice that the people who have argued most strongly that it was OK to split the US in two in order to preserve chattel slavery are among the most vocally opposed to this? Fascinating.
            Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              That's the point.. The Fourteenth Amendment has become the "Miracle Amendment."
              I'm sorry, but I missed your point then. What's the issue with discovering that an Amendment can be applied in ways not intitially intended?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                I'm sorry, but I missed your point then. What's the issue with discovering that an Amendment can be applied in ways not intitially intended?
                See Federalist #78.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  I didn't know the Federalist papers governed the Judicial branch on constitutional matters. When were they declared law?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                    Why does your Catholic Church get to decide who marries?
                    The Church does not decide on the laws of a country, it merely inputs its viewpoints.


                    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                    Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others marry.
                    Yes they do but gay marriage is the issue at hand here.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      I didn't know the Federalist papers governed the Judicial branch on constitutional matters. When were they declared law?
                      The Federalist papers were.guarantees issued to the States that the Constitution would not enable the Federal Government to usurp the powers of the States. Without the assurances of the Federalist papers, the Constitution would almost certainly have not been ratified.

                      SCOTUS has routinely cited Federalist papers in its decisions...



                      The Federalist is the equivalent of a set of appendices to a contract which clarify the terms.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        The Federalist papers were.guarantees issued to the States that the Constitution would not enable the Federal Government to usurp the powers of the States. Without the assurances of the Federalist papers, the Constitution would almost certainly have not been ratified.
                        Oh no, I agree there. But they don't have any legal power in themselves, only insofar as people cite them or use them to divine intent and meaning. They show the intent, the thinking, behind some of America's most important politicians and political figures and are wonderful reading for constitutional scholars.

                        And they're free online, which is why I've got my copies on my phone and iPad!

                        The Federalist is the equivalent of a set of appendices to a contract which clarify the terms.
                        More like an informal Wiki meant to provide clarity in an unofficial capacity. Influential, certainly, but they don't overwrite the constitution nor define what is or isn't constitutional in an official manner.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          Oh no, I agree there. But they don't have any legal power in themselves, only insofar as people cite them or use them to divine intent and meaning. They show the intent, the thinking, behind some of America's most important politicians and political figures and are wonderful reading for constitutional scholars.

                          And they're free online, which is why I've got my copies on my phone and iPad!



                          More like an informal Wiki meant to provide clarity in an unofficial capacity. Influential, certainly, but they don't overwrite the constitution nor define what is or isn't constitutional in an official manner.
                          The Federalist along with the transcripts of the ratification debates are the only sources of original intent. Nothing in the Constitution empowers SCOTUS or any other element of the Federal Government to assert any powers beyond those explicitly delegated in the Constitution. It explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from exercising powers not delegated to it by the States.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            The Federalist along with the transcripts of the ratification debates are the only sources of original intent. Nothing in the Constitution empowers SCOTUS or any other element of the Federal Government to assert any powers beyond those explicitly delegated in the Constitution. It explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from exercising powers not delegated to it by the States.
                            But intent is not legally binding and is, in many ways, pretty subjective. The letter of the law trumps the original spirit.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              But intent is not legally binding and is, in many ways, pretty subjective. The letter of the law trumps the original spirit.
                              The "letter of the law" defined marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman in ~38 States prior to the onslaught of judicial activism since 2012.

                              Nothing in the "letter of" the Constitution, including the Miracle Amendment, empowered the courts to override this with their own opinions.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                But intent is not legally binding and is, in many ways, pretty subjective. The letter of the law trumps the original spirit.
                                Although yesterday we found out the "letters in the ABA law" did not trump what was written in the ABA by whoever wrote it.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                • casanova
                                  Adults Rashid Dostur
                                  by casanova
                                  The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                  Today, 00:48
                                • casanova
                                  Alouette III
                                  by casanova
                                  The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                  Today, 00:22
                                • casanova
                                  Israel Army
                                  by casanova
                                  The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                  Yesterday, 23:15
                                Working...
                                X