Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

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

  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    The Catholic Church doesn't tell us how to vote.
    Crash, it is interesting that you are attempting to back up my above statement.......but don't do it using made up Crash Facts.


    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Guess they don't totally support their own oppression...
    Since when is giving birth "oppression"?

    "98%"......where did you determine that?

    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    Catholic women usually have two children..that means about 5 years trying/being/between kids and, oh, 30 years trying not to get pregnant.
    There is no way that you could know the procreation activities of Catholic Women.

    Something else to think about, we have atheist that were raised Catholics.....they don't consider themselves to be Catholics yet polls will label them as Catholic if it helps their agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakechampainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    Sounds like you didn't read or understand either the ruling.

    What Kennedy said was if the states approved gay marriage it would be improper for the Federal Government to attempt to invalidate it. So...the Feds could NOT forbid gay marriage.

    In the recent ruling he ruled that the States were not following due process and equal protection in banning gay marriage. Still a State issue.
    Why do the rulings always have to be so "nuanced" and "multilayered" and "evolving" - how about following the laws- statutory and common?

    By the way, are there not in the 56 US states and territories bodies of common law relating to marriage which predate the US by centuries?

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Obviously not, why ask that question?

    The Catholic Church is Pro-life yet Catholics still vote for abortionist.

    98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Guess they don't totally support their own oppression...

    Catholic women usually have two children..that means about 5 years trying/being/between kids and, oh, 30 years trying not to get pregnant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Forgive me, but I don't think they're already not. The Catholic vote is a powerful voting bloc, after all. We already see churches raising funds and volunteers for, say, anti-abortion groups, so it wouldn't be much more different.
    Actually it would be. Sure the church is involved in morality issues now. But there's a big difference between funding pro life charities and buying politicians in Washington. Do you want churches buying politicians? Do you want them using the power of the pulpit to endorse candidates? I don't want that and I'm a Christian. I really don't think you want megachurches using cash to affect Congressional votes. Especially since religion can outspend nonreligion. You say religion is political now but "you ain't seen nothing yet" if you start shaking down churches and incentivizing the creation of church lobbyists. If the thought of it creeps me out it should terrify you.

    And at the core of the issue is why should government decide what is or isn't a religion? Why does the state get to decide what a church is? Isn't my 'Church of the Dollar' - Saving your soul and your pocket book since 1984! - just as valid as any other faith? What happens when the US government decides Christianity isn't a religion deserving of churches anymore?

    You make a good point especially in light of SCROTUScare and their trouble with the English language. I'm just telling you the consequences of taxing churches. Solving the problem of "who decides what a church is" might be better done with a solution that doesn't involve breaking "separation of church and state" and turning the church into a political wing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Do you think the Catholics would vote how the church told them to vote?
    Obviously not, why ask that question?

    The Catholic Church is Pro-life yet Catholics still vote for abortionist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    The Catholic Church doesn't tell us how to vote. President Obama would have lost the last election had Catholic voters voted in line with the Church.

    The Pro-Life movement has been going on since Roe vs Wade.
    Do you think the Catholics would vote how the church told them to vote?

    Leave a comment:


  • Handsome Jack
    replied
    I'm not sure why a state would disapprove of gay marriage, though. Beyond some psychological studies it doesn't seem like there's any outstanding problems caused by allowing gays to marry, and religious belief is probably the biggest factor of opposition to it. I stand by separation of church and state to the death, and in that case I can't see any other reason states would outright deny the right of couples to marry.

    Churches on the other hand should retain their right to condone and perform or otherwise as they see fit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    The Catholic Church doesn't tell us how to vote. President Obama would have lost the last election had Catholic voters voted in line with the Church.

    The Pro-Life movement has been going on since Roe vs Wade.
    Not necessarily....as you know the US doesn't decide their President on popular vote.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    Sounds like you didn't read or understand either the ruling.

    What Kennedy said was if the states approved gay marriage it would be improper for the Federal Government to attempt to invalidate it. So...the Feds could NOT forbid gay marriage.

    In the recent ruling he ruled that the States were not following due process and equal protection in banning gay marriage. Still a State issue.
    And if a state didn't approve gay marriage?

    What you say above is that the states could either approve gay marriage or approve gay marriage. That that was the Supreme Court's position.
    In other words, even though the majority of states disapproved of gay marriage and that (in the opinion of the court was the prevue of the states) the states couldn't take that position because then it became a federal issue not a state issue.

    Seems to me Kennedy was making it up as he went. Either it was and is a state issue or not. It can't be a state issue half the time, and when the states don't do what the court wants it suddenly becomes a federal issue.

    Not that I really care either way. It is one more nail in the LGBT political agenda's coffin as the more public they become the more their miniscule numbers become apparent.
    Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 04 Jul 15, 12:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Forgive me, but I don't think they're already not. The Catholic vote is a powerful voting bloc, after all. We already see churches raising funds and volunteers for, say, anti-abortion groups, so it wouldn't be much more different.
    The Catholic Church doesn't tell us how to vote. President Obama would have lost the last election had Catholic voters voted in line with the Church.

    The Pro-Life movement has been going on since Roe vs Wade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Then why was a earlier federal law (DOMA) overturned in favor of the states?

    Either the feds could forbid gay marriage or the states could. The rulings by Kennedy are in direct opposition to each other.

    Kennedy's ruling on DOMA placed marriage as a state responsibility. Then his ruling on gay marriage made it a federal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

    Sounds like you didn't read or understand either the ruling.

    What Kennedy said was if the states approved gay marriage it would be improper for the Federal Government to attempt to invalidate it. So...the Feds could NOT forbid gay marriage.

    In the recent ruling he ruled that the States were not following due process and equal protection in banning gay marriage. Still a State issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    And his ruling stated that the current STATE laws that forbid Gay marriage are in violation of the Constitution. That does not mean it is now a Federal issue. States still write the laws concerning marriage, they just can no long exclude gay couples otherwise it is still a State issue.
    Then why was a earlier federal law (DOMA) overturned in favor of the states?

    Either the feds could forbid gay marriage or the states could. The rulings by Kennedy are in direct opposition to each other.

    Kennedy's ruling on DOMA placed marriage as a state responsibility. Then his ruling on gay marriage made it a federal responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    One interesting point lost in this is that Kennedy is the same justice that back when DOMA was an issue a few years back came down and stated gay marriage was a states issue not a federal one.
    Today, apparently it is a federal issue not a state one for him.

    Strange how that can change in just a few years, cutting both ways to the favor of the LGBT community...
    And his ruling stated that the current STATE laws that forbid Gay marriage are in violation of the Constitution. That does not mean it is now a Federal issue. States still write the laws concerning marriage, they just can no long exclude gay couples otherwise it is still a State issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
    Not really. Some do but its subtle. People of religion play politics but they operate financially independent of houses of worship. Churches don't use their bank accounts to bankroll politicians. Said politicians must earn their support from individual Christians and private Christian business. And churches don't hire lobbyists. At best they use volunteers. All that changes if you tax the church.

    Boils down to one question. How would you like the Vatican or the megachurches buying influence in Washington through lobbies and using lobbyist power to influence congressional votes? Right now they don't. Want that to change?
    Forgive me, but I don't think they're already not. The Catholic vote is a powerful voting bloc, after all. We already see churches raising funds and volunteers for, say, anti-abortion groups, so it wouldn't be much more different.

    And at the core of the issue is why should government decide what is or isn't a religion? Why does the state get to decide what a church is? Isn't my 'Church of the Dollar' - Saving your soul and your pocket book since 1984! - just as valid as any other faith? What happens when the US government decides Christianity isn't a religion deserving of churches anymore?

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    One interesting point lost in this is that Kennedy is the same justice that back when DOMA was an issue a few years back came down and stated gay marriage was a states issue not a federal one.
    Today, apparently it is a federal issue not a state one for him.

    Strange how that can change in just a few years, cutting both ways to the favor of the LGBT community...
    Ahhhh...of course...the Federal Government does not issue marriage licenses.

    Kennedy wrote the majority opinion overturning the DOMA...if you couldn't see this coming you need new glasses.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X