31
32

5-4 Yes for SSM (self.Catholicism)

binkknib が 投稿

Kyrie eleison.

Edit: The opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

全 136 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]StormyRaindeer 26ポイント27ポイント  (30子コメント)

You know, what I found interesting is that the SCOTUS is actually comprised of only Roman Catholics and two Jews.

[–]TheMigratoryCoconut 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Kennedy: I'm a Roman Catholic votes for same-sex "marriage"

Church: you keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

[–]mbevks 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

You forget, the non-Catholic modernists masquerade as Catholics all over the place. It is best to call them what they are, heretics.

[–]avengingturnip 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or just apostates.

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't realize "apostate" is related to the word "apostasy" which I always remember from this quote of the Letter to the Hebrews:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 35ポイント36ポイント  (19子コメント)

Get off Facebook, hide in your internet corners.

[–]Hormisdas 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

I fear the same thing as post-Ireland referendum may happen here again. (i.e. neo-lib brigade on /r/Catholicism)

[–]Grammatologist 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Brace yourselves. Pride is coming.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh, I'm certain of it.

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's already happening. I just made a new post and it's already been downvoted by a non-Catholic who commented to tell me how wrong I am. /cc /u/Hormisdas

[–]FleetSevens -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

I am honestly ashamed to call myself American. On the plus side, I won't have to answer to God for it, unlike the people in Ireland who actually had a vote on it.

[–]Hormisdas 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I've never been proud to be an American, so this ruling doesn't do much for me on that front. (In the first grade, my teacher would play a tape of "I'm Proud to Be an American," and even as a six year old, I loathed that song.)

[–]FleetSevens 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wonder if Poland or Croatia will accept applications for a young devoutly Catholic American college student to move there.

[–]EpicEuonym 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably. University in Poland is so much cheaper than university in America.

[–]Lalalandowns -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm sorry, but then get out of this country.

[–]Hormisdas 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

My people were here before the Americans took over this land, and we resisted assimilation into the American culture until the education system forced children to speak English. I have the right to detest Americanism, and I will use it until I die.

[–]RannGast 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the game plan here

[–]Grisk13 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yep. I'll not be spending much time on the internet for the next few weeks. Unfortunately, I'm in a social circle that is loudly pro-ssm, so I will hear it any and everywhere. It is what it is, there's little I can do about it.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why is your social circle that?

[–]Grisk13 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's a bit unfortunate and it definitely wears me out at times, but I actually am not close with any other practicing Catholics. It's something I'm working on; they're hard to find in academia.

[–]jonguz 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually am not close with any other practicing Catholics. It's something I'm working on; they're hard to find in academia.

THIS. I FEEL YOU.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

How old you? Where you live?

I caveman.

[–]Grisk13 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hahaha! I'm 23 and I live in Richmond, va.

[–]missingmarkerlids 18ポイント19ポイント  (7子コメント)

Gay marriage has been legal in my country for more than a decade now. I support it. I know I'm supposed to object, but why should my religious beliefs impact other people? People have sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarry all the time. These things are legal because there is no morality police and thank heavens for that.

[–]FloorDeKeys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are scriptural reasons to suggest homosexuality should be illegal. Allowing it is one thing. Blessing it and approving it by allowing marriages is something quite different.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

There's a fundamental difference between allowing people to do bad things and recognizing those bad things as valid.

[–]Liquor_n_cheezebrgrs 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Bear in mind that you thinking, or even believing fundamentally that SSM is bad does not make it so. You were taught that SSM is bad, sinful, whatever. The majority of Americans think that you were taught wrong, and now the SCOTUS has also agreed that you were taught wrong.

[–]RunForWord 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bear in mind that SCOTUS thinking, or even believing fundamentally that SSM is good does not make it so. They were persuaded by popular opinion that SSM is good, love, whatever. The Catholic Church thinks that they were persuaded wrong, and now the some redditors here have also agreed that they were persuaded wrong.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In what way is this relevant to the point I made? You're misunderstanding the distinction at issue, whether or not it's bad or good: allowing versus sanctioning.

And with all due respect, don't presume to know why I think what I think. I'll extend you the same courtesy and not presume that you are merely following the shallow, unphilosophical status quo opinion about sexual morality, as most people do in this country.

[–]KarateCowboy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Broken mating instincts are good, then?

[–]0onsk 15ポイント16ポイント  (10子コメント)

I just hope there are some legal protections for catholic institutions, but I'm not holding my breath. Difficult times for faithful Catholics are ahead for sure.

[–]TheHumanTornado76 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

The majority opinion makes it quite clear there will be religious protections* in place, so no, there will be no Catholic shotgun weddings, no matter how hilarious that might be.

edit: meant protections, not instructions. #phoneposting

[–]binkknib[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Instruction !== exercise.

Edit: No, you said it right the first time. The majority makes no real mention of protecting the free exercise of religion. It says "instruction" can continue. That's freedom of speech, not free exercise of religion. The First Amendment is separated by clauses that must be read independently.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, the tone was basically "you religious people are free to go on thinking and telling people that it's wrong." Which doesn't really get to the heart of exercise. The fact that they even said that is weird. Did we doubt that we would be able to tell people this?

[–]binkknib[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeeeeeep!

I need a beer.

[–]deakannoyingDeacon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let's meet in Corpus. We have a suite until Sunday.

[–]ARCJols 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just by the name it sounds funny, but can you explain what a shotgun wedding is? Like...someone comes with a shotgun to force you to marry them?

[–]wood_and_nails 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

"the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death light has arisen."

[–]PeterMetz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are there legal protections for divorce and second marriages? Why is this any different?

[–]BroccoliManChild -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

The opinion merely says that states have to recognize gay marriages. They are regulating state activity. This will have no bearing on whether Catholic institutions have to recognize/perform gay marriages.

[–]IRVCath 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Que lastima.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 8ポイント9ポイント  (23子コメント)

Kennedy really is embarrassingly bleeding heart in this opinion.

Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken.

I mean, goodness gracious.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right

He was really aiming for the fences with this one. Condemned to live in loneliness!

It was hard to figure out. What was the legal reasoning here? "Fundamental right" is the angle they went, it looks like.

Another thing. You knew they were going to win in how the dissents were written. All of them were apologetic and "Oh, we're not against whatever the people want!" None of them had the backbone to really say anything more than "We should have left it up to the people!" The majority had their opinion. This is a good thing. But the dissent (conservatives in this country) will never say "This is a bad thing" and in fact imply it would be fine and dandy if it was done "democratically."

A fun, dramatic Roberts line:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

[–]dyskutant 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can Kennedy be excommunicated for this? I actually don't know.

And guess what case it cited? Griswold v. Connecticut, the same case that backed Roe. We'll never get over the legacy of that case.

[–]Awful-Falafel 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, he is guilty of material heresy, and really this qualifies as formal heresy. He has cleary, unquestionably, placed himself outside the Church with his heretical and schismatic statements, but I doubt that the Vatican would ever excommunicate anyone in this age.

[–]xSaRgED 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would imagine that he could be excommunicated. It is an extremely public scandal.

[–]Grammatologist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would only take a single amendment to undo the illusion of "penumbras" and "emanations" that led us to the legal fiction of the 'right to privacy'. Conservatives will be in a position to pass such an amendment after 2016, at which point the entire liberal project will collapse.

Matthew 7:26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.

The right to privacy is sand. The illusion of sand.

[–]Grisk13 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

... marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.

And can someone please ask him why that is? We've fully divorced marriage from anything that once made it exactly what he's saying. No fault divorce, contraception, abortion... It no longer means anything.

We've removed the permanency, removed the impetus for staying together, removed the commitment... So exactly what is it anymore? A meaningless partnership with tax-befits that don't even serve their original purpose anymore.

So I'll ask, why does anyone want to get married? Clearly there's nothing special about it, it's just super-friendship with a masturbatory aid.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

You will likely see an increase and then a decrease in marriage as people become more disillusioned with the institution.

[–]Hellenas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, at least what they think it ought to be.

[–]avengingturnip 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

...why does anyone want to get married? Clearly there's nothing special about it, it's just super-friendship with a masturbatory aid.

You captured the modern concept of marriage perfectly.

[–]FleetSevens 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anthony Kennedy is one of the worst justices in history.

[–]avengingturnip 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

What kind of drugs is Kennedy smoking?

[–]Fearless85 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He isn't smoking shit.

This is straight up dirty needle in the arm stuff bro.

[–]binkknib[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

When I was 14, I'd try to write really profound prose and poetry. Lines like, "You took my breath away, and took my heart right along; and all I can give to you... is this song." Crappily transparent lines that screamed "I want to be memorable."

TIL Kennedy is /u/binkknib at 14.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hehe. It really is especially bad, even for Kennedy.

[–]dyskutant 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Remember this?

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

It's ridiculous.

[–]Hormisdas 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow did they really put that in an opinion? 'Cause that's just garbage.

[–]dyskutant 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup, that one upheld Roe.

[–]ratboid314 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember that. I am cringing just as hard now as the first time I heard it.

[–]KarateCowboy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He was really aiming for the fences with this one. Condemned to live in loneliness!

Earth to Kennedy: Orientation changes.

[–]BCSWowbagger2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, legally speaking, it would be just fine if passed democratically.

I gave up on civil marriage a while ago, so what really alarms me about this decision is the damage it does to the democratic foundations of the Republic.

[–]aliencupcake -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

The dissents don't oppose legislative legalization because there is no legal basis for doing so.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really my point. There's not even a hint of an opinion as to whether it's good or bad. Whereas the other side has no problem expressing their support.

I appreciate their desire to remain "neutral," but when you have one side trying to be neutral and the other not even close, the non-neutral side tends to get bulldozed over.

[–]kdoubledogg 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think most people would agree with that. But many people are distressed by the judicial coup that bypasses all of that by finding a "right to redefine marriage."

[–]kaesekopf 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Either the chastisement is coming, or God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!

[–]avengingturnip 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pray that it will be quick.

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Hide yo kids, hide yo wife."

[–]lapapinton 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Incidentally, that guy became a Black Hebrew Israelite.

[–]Fearless85 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Too many "Catholics" in the US, including clergy, actually agree with this legal outcome, which was not helpful.

Rome better stay strong because you know that's where SSM supporters are looking to go next (not to mention that many near the top already support it).

[–]bunker_man -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well good. The vatican's anti gay and anti contraception immoral stances are only harming their ability to get attention for their good views, like preventing abortion and helping the third world with schools. The faster their harmful part is swept away, the less damage they will cause.

[–]shplackum019 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

What part do the majority of you disagree with?

[–]binkknib[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

On my phone. Can't give a thoughtful reply. In short, all of it. It's an exercise in specious logic, emotional appeals, and cherry-picked facts. I'll respond in an edit later when I can give a more extensive reply. The dissents sum up my problems pretty well, though.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

Roberts' dissent is spot on. I am genuinely surprised the majority didn't go with equal protection. It's the better argument. And less completely destroys the dignity of the Court.

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Roberts' dissent is spot on.

Please post in new thread for me to read.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's with the majority opinion. Just scroll toward the bottom: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

tldr my friend, tldr

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I mean...it's law, so it's not a TLDR thing. But he argues that they made up a fundamental right out of nowhere and that they presume the definition of "marriage" for the sake of their conclusion. He also notes that there is no justification, using the Court's reasoning, banning polygamy:

One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14- 4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

He also notes that there is no justification, using the Court's reasoning, banning polygamy

Nor incest.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Incest has that whole health and welfare element. But yes, if it were like a lesbian sister couple, I don't know what justification the state could have in banning it.

[–]dyskutant 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

They went with dignity right?

A lot of people have been arguing that a dignity victory means this could spell the end of court decisions in favor of the movement.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

What do you mean?

[–]dyskutant 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Essentially, if the legal reasoning was dignity based (rather than, say, making sexual orientation a protected class), it would cause serious issues for any further attempts to seek protection from the courts. The Atlantic wrote an article on it here

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't think this will have any negative effect on the future of the movement. I think the broader the justification, the more traction you can gain. His concerns that conservatives will use it are unfounded in my opinion. The Court is just following cultural norms, not the law. A less-clear law is better for liberals, not worse.

Also this, heh:

[Scalia's] question about why the state’s police power to protect public morals—taken for granted from the founding era until the Lawrence case—was suddenly a violation of the Constitution remains valid and unanswered.

I've never heard a valid answer.

[–]dyskutant 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think Lawrence was lost when Griswold was decided.

It all comes back to that one decision.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's an identification of why it happened. It's not an identification of the constitutional justification for it.

[–]dyskutant 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think there is one, I find Griswold to be based on falsehood.

[–]Fearless85 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

TAKE COVER R/CATHOLICISM FAITHFUL. "ENLIGHTENED" REDDIT USERS HAVE JOINED US FOR a DOWNVOTE ASSAULT ON THE TRUTH

[–]BigMike0228 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

On the upside: this is further distancing the gap between church and state. Our Gov obviously does not always govern based on moral decision... Laws are supposed to be written to keep people safe. For some reason our government thinks it's their job to tell it's people what is right and wrong, it's not, it's their job to tell us what is legal and illegal. I hope this reminds everyone to remain faithful to their faith before their country.

[–]IRVCath 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not an upside any more than a necessary civil divorce is. There is ideally to be a union with church and state, though keeping to their separate spheres. This did not go away with the last ecumenical council. Quite the contrary, they reinforced it

[–]MilesChristi -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

what the fuck?

[–]Fearless85 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Para. 2 annoys me.

Translation: What is acceptable and unacceptable always changes pursuant to culture, so since our culture and attitude towards SSM is changing, we've got the A-OK here. Yay relativism. We're so smart and enlightened. Like ya duh..