45
46

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 200 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 30ポイント31ポイント  (47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 14ポイント15ポイント  (17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

[–]c010rb1indusa 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's almost like he doesn't think his views should be imposed on the rest of us.

[–]PhaetonsFolly 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

What else does the Supreme Court do beyond imposing their views on others?

[–]BornInATrailer 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Interpret the law wrt the constitution and not their own personal beliefs?

[–]Colts56 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

But as Catholics we are called to do what we believe is right. Which is uphold the teachings of the church. Yes it gets complicated when you are in this position, but its also what we believe is best for everyone.

[–]BCSWowbagger2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is a good description of what the Court is supposed to do, but even my friends who support SSM agree that the majority did not of the sort in today's absurd decision.

[–]dyskutant 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you read Kennedy's decisions?

" 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"

Profound legal reasoning right there /s

[–]quagmire0 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a ton of 'Catholic' politicians out there that are having a good old time casually dismissing what the Pope says and voting for SSM.

[–]mbevks 7ポイント8ポイント  (4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 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Or just apostates.

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

I didn't realize "apostate" is related to the word "apostasy" which always reminds me of 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.

[–]Otiac 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those that voted pro should be formally excommunicated from their local Bishops. I'm actually disgusted they still label themselves 'Catholic' after doing something like this.

[–]exodus77 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Weirdly I had just looked this up like 10 min before seeing your comment.

Its actually 6/9. Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish. Everyone always forgets Breyer, IMO he is the justice who flies under the radar the most.

Still I agree its really incredible. I don't know what to think about it.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 49ポイント50ポイント  (37子コメント)

Get off Facebook, hide in your internet corners.

[–]RannGast 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the game plan here

[–]Hormisdas 16ポイント17ポイント  (22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 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Brace yourselves. Pride is coming.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh, I'm certain of it.

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 6ポイント7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

[–]Grisk13 7ポイント8ポイント  (11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 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

Why is your social circle that?

[–]Grisk13 6ポイント7ポイント  (9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 12ポイント13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  (7子コメント)

How old you? Where you live?

I caveman.

[–]Grisk13 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

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

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

Seriously? 24 in rockville MD. There's some nice rock climbing between here and there. You should PM me.

[–]Grisk13 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Dude, rock climbing sounds awesome! I haven't been!

[–]KarateCowboy 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I prefer rick rolling.

[–]Grisk13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Damn you, autocorrect!!

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

Yes, I'm nowhere near there. I asked in case some good Catholics might be near you.

[–]herabec 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least I have I'll get a good Facebook-friend culling out of this.

[–]0onsk 20ポイント21ポイント  (12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 9ポイント10ポイント  (6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] 8ポイント9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 10ポイント11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] 5ポイント6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  (1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?

[–]Gregatr0n 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

From Wikipedia:

A shotgun wedding is a wedding that is arranged to avoid embarrassment due to an unplanned pregnancy, rather than out of the desire of the participants. The phrase is an American colloquialism, though it is also used in other parts of the world, based on a supposed scenario (usually hyperbole) that the father of the pregnant daughter, almost by accepted custom, must resort to using coercion (such as threatening with a shotgun) to ensure that the man who impregnated her follows through with the wedding.

One purpose of such a wedding can be to get recourse from the man for the act of impregnation; another reason is to ensure that the child is raised by both parents.

[–]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 2ポイント3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2ポイント  (2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 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Que lastima.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 16ポイント17ポイント  (34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 18ポイント19ポイント  (6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 17ポイント18ポイント  (1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.

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

They just might use him to make an example of him. If not, it wouldn't be a good message to other catholics

[–]xSaRgED 11ポイント12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  (2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.

[–]PlasmaBurnz -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I pray to God you're right. Our nation will collapse under the damage of our broken families if we don't. Though it would just make recovery possible as the hard work will be actually renewing hearts and minds.

I had kind of hoped that this decision would turn back the tide(overturn Griswold v Connecticut), but it will have to be somewhere else.

[–]Grisk13 11ポイント12ポイント  (9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 7ポイント8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 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

[–]avengingturnip 15ポイント16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.

[–]herabec 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You know what's especially amusing about that? Death is the one thing that ends a marriage. "Til death do us part" and all.

What an empty statement, regardless. People miss loved ones who have died, regardless of wether they were a spouse or child, or friend.

Unless this was some kind of veiled defense of necrophilia.

[–]Grisk13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're blurring a line. There's a difference between love and marriage. Marriage does end at death, it no longer serves a purpose.

[–]KingMong -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

you view a partner as a masturbatory aid? you are aware that Catholics dont hold a monopoly on the ability to love...

[–]Grisk13 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Absolutely! Anyone can love anyone else. In fact, that's a thing we like to encourage.

However, love != sex and love != children, which is what marriage is. It's a union that continues the race.

[–]Fearless85 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, everybody else views a partner as a masturbatory aid, especially active homosexuals.

[–]KingMong 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You for real, do you really believe that your faith is the only one where people care for their partner and have them around for more than sex? Do you believe gay people do not love their partners?

God, people like you are the reason catholics get a bad name around the world.

[–]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.

[–]binkknib[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (6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 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

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

[–]dyskutant 8ポイント9ポイント  (4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 4ポイント5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 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup, that one upheld Roe.

[–]KarateCowboy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

LOL, he should have added " Da ba dee, da ba die".

[–]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.

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

What kind of drugs is Kennedy smoking?

[–]Fearless85 2ポイント3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.

[–]PlasmaBurnz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they are legal, they shouldn't be.

[–]KarateCowboy 2ポイント3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 1ポイント2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 9ポイント10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 2ポイント3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."

[–]missingmarkerlids 17ポイント18ポイント  (16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.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 14ポイント15ポイント  (8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 0ポイント1ポイント  (5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.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 18ポイント19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.

[–]RunForWord 15ポイント16ポイント  (2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.

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

Fair enough, but SCOTUS didn't rule that SSM is good, they ruled that it is constitutional, or moreover that the banning of such is unconstitutional. My comment was in reference to Hurrah's statement that SSM is bad. SSM isn't necessarily bad or good, but it is fair.

[–]strowen 3ポイント4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.

Oh, the irony

[–]KarateCowboy 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Broken mating instincts are good, then?

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

Like divorce?

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

The Church isn't fundamentally against the institution of civil divorce. And it's halfway in that it's really the state allowing people to separate and recognizing that separation. But yes, that is not an allowing like adultery is.

[–]FloorDeKeys 8ポイント9ポイント  (5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.

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

But there's that whole pesky establishment clause thing. Scripture is not a valid reason for enacting legislation in this country.

We allow racist speech in this country because it is recognized as constitutionally protected expression. That doesn't mean the courts or the government are blessing it or approving it.

[–]FloorDeKeys -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't completely fault this line of reasoning. On the surface, it appears sound. However, the country also has a duty to enforce proper morality so that the society functions properly. The court already has precedent to disallow religious marriages it finds wrong. See what the federal government did to the Mormon church. This is clearly a violation of the establishment clause, yet they got away with it because they said the state has an interest in establishing correct morality. By this precedent, we aren't violating the establishment clause by disallowing homosexuality.

Read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

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

why should my religious beliefs impact other people?

facepalm . Christ warned against that kind of thinking over, and over, and over and over again. Christ said: the tree that does not bear fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. He was referring to your faith/religion. He was referring to you. If your religious beliefs are not affecting other people then your faith is dead and so will be your soul in the afterlife.

That said, this goes beyond religion to just science and common sense. Is homosexuality equal to heterosexuality? Is a broken mating instinct equal to a healthy one? Is marriage a social institution based on the natural union of a man and woman -- as anthropology tells us -- or is it is the state blessing the feelings between any two or more people?

[–]PM_ME_UR_CATECHISM 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Hide yo kids, hide yo wife."

[–]lapapinton 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Incidentally, that guy became a Black Hebrew Israelite.

[–]Fearless85 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

TAKE COVER R/CATHOLICISM FAITHFUL. "ENLIGHTENED" REDDIT USERS HAVE JOINED US FOR AN ASSAULT ON THE TRUTH VIA DOWNVOTES

[–]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.

[–]Fearless85 3ポイント4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).

[–]Hormisdas 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

May God have mercy on us all.

Edit: reading up on the case last night, I did think that that was a bad defense by the "states should decide" side. I mean come on, this isn't education or some other lesser issue. Either marriage is to be between a man and a woman or it is not.

[–]balrogath 5ポイント6ポイント  (9子コメント)

They are interpreters of the law, not creators or new ones. The constitution does not expressly give marriage rights anywhere so the ruling according to the dissenters should have been to leave it to legislators.

[–]aliencupcake 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

The Constitution requires equal protection under the law.

[–]balrogath 14ポイント15ポイント  (6子コメント)

But if marriage is between a man and a woman, then there is already equal protection. Marriage is not defined in the constitution.

[–]Sang_dirty_old_town 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Marriage is defined by law, not the constitution; if it were in the constitution then the court would have nothing to say about it. But the regarding law does not provide equal rights to gay couples as it does to straight couples, therefore that law fails the 14th amendment test. As such, marriage as defined by law cannot be restricted to simply heterosexual couples.

This isn't a judgement on sacramental marriage, just on what U.S. law is allowed to define marriage as.

[–]kdoubledogg 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

But see, this is what people were arguing, you never group people into "couples" when discussing rights. Homosexual people had just as much of a right to enter into marriage before this decision, most of them just did not want to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. The institution did not bar homosexual people from entering into marriage, it just barred them from redefining marriage.

In my opinion, this is a sweeping court decision that will propel the courts to new levels of judicial activism that people who lived through Roe could never dream of. Rights will be found anywhere and everywhere in the Constitution if need be.

[–]aliencupcake 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

How hard is it to understand that different institutions can define things differently according to their purposes?

[–]LimeHatKitty 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ah yes, your "version" of truth is just as truthful as anyone else's! 1+1=72 in my truth and it's just as true as yours!

[–]aliencupcake 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a recognition that we can use the same word for different things and that even if there is an underlying similarity that justifies using the same word that doesn't make it the same thing.

[–]Hormisdas -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Marriage is defined by law, not the constitution

Marriage is an institution superior to civil law. It is innate in the nature of man, codified in natural law, which man cannot change.

[–]Hormisdas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And that's a great idea (really), but we shouldn't honestly be expecting SCOTUS (of all bodies) to be adhering to "good ideas."

[–]FleetSevens -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't worry. Your downvotes are coming from brigaders, not Catholics.

[–]Fearless85 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

We need to counteract by upvoting all pro-Catholic comments.

[–]shplackum019 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

What part do the majority of you disagree with?

[–]dyskutant 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I haven't read the whole thing, but Roberts' dissent is looking like a good explanation.

[–]quagmire0 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think, at the heart of it, is the word 'marriage'. The Catholic and largely religious belief is that Man and Woman are 'married' and then go on to procreate under marriage - continuing the circle of life that God put us on this planet for. Obviously, except through only scientific means or adoption, same sex couples cannot attain this. I think that if the word 'marriage' was left off - and it stuck to natural rights via civil unions, there wouldn't be as big of a furor over it. All in all, it's all semantics. Bottom line is that I, as a Christian, will not actively look to infringe my beliefs on ANYONE. I'm responsible for myself and my family. But I expect the same courtesy to be given back to me. I should not be branded a bigot for not agreeing with the LGBT lifestyle, just as they should not be branded bigots for not agreeing with my belief in God. You believe in what you believe in and stay out of my business and I'll give you the same courtesy.

[–]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 7ポイント8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 1ポイント2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 1ポイント2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 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

tldr my friend, tldr

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 4ポイント5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 4ポイント5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 0ポイント1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.

[–]BigMike0228 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2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 3ポイント4ポイント  (1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

[–]BigMike0228 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ideally yeah... A separation between church and state with a union would be great... But realistically our government is run by corrupt and flawed humans. The only function of the government is to provide public service and protect citizens from harm. In no way is it the right for the government to decided what moral decisions we should make if they do not cause financial or physical harm to others. Saying a governing body of a nation this big should be the moral police is horrifying. Historically theocracies kill more of its own citizens than they protect. In now way now, nor ever was it the United States governments job to decide what was morally right for its people... That's up to the person to do. Don't look to the Hill for moral guidence, look to the Gospel, your family and yourself.

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

Worst Supreme Court ever.

[–]Vathah -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Like worse than the Dred Scott decision? Or Plessy V. Ferguson?

Are you insane?

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

The Dredd Scott decision was technically correct according to the law at the time. Plessy was a little more messy but it still allowed for equal treatment even if separate. This decision created something out of whole cloth that the constitution is silent on. It is the worse act of judicial activism since the Roe v. Wade decision.

[–]Fearless85 -1ポイント0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..

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

what the fuck?