Justice's Ginsburg and Kagan had previously presided over gay weddings before todays SCOTUS ruling.
They should have recused themselves from this case.
But, because they are Progressive Liberals, they didn't.
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Justice's Ginsburg and Kagan had previously presided over gay weddings before todays SCOTUS ruling.
They should have recused themselves from this case.
But, because they are Progressive Liberals, they didn't.
Shasta
Well-known member
As it stands today the Judiciarchy has the power to order this.
Pretty soon, the following will be considered hate speech, and will not be allowed:
(Lev 18:22) ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
(Lev 18:22) ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So say's Pope Francis.No S.S.M. in Catholic parishes.'
Daniel
The right to marry isn't the only right in play. Religious liberty is as well and this would differ dramatically with the baker, who cannot lay claim to the basis of his practice being altered or offended, however he might be. A member of the clergy within a church where homosexuality is defined as sin and where the joining of homosexuals would be on par with a violation of the office is in a position much akin to the Amish and conscription.
:5020:
I have no doubt that some will try and make the point against traditional religious institutions. I'm equally confident the Court, should it rise to that level, will sustain and preserve the right of men of the cloth to remain within the confines of their duty.
One of the differences here is that while there could well be a town and a world where if we allow bakers and grocers to choose who is worthy of their craft then someone might starve. But the marriage contract is between the state and the parties. God is superfluous as far as the legality is concerned. So there is really no dignity being denied by a pastor's refusal except the dignity to which the offended don't subscribe, which cannot then be of real value to them and the denial of which cannot be said to work a real injury.
That would be one answer at any rate.
One of the differences here is that while there could well be a town and a world where if we allow bakers and grocers to choose who is worthy of their craft then someone might starve. But the marriage contract is between the state and the parties. God is superfluous as far as the legality is concerned. So there is really no dignity being denied by a pastor's refusal except the dignity to which the offended don't subscribe, which cannot then be of real value to them and the denial of which cannot be said to work a real injury.
That would be one answer at any rate.
It's called reading.
And in my line of work, I read everything.
Your efforts will always self serving. Men are subject to under a proper authority. When they pretend they are the ultimate determinant of right and wrong, we go downhill.
The nation that calls homos married and murders children by the millions?
Not to mention right.
Last edited:
Justice Kennedy is a Republican. Worked for Reagan, appointed by Ford.
Have other Justices presided over heterosexual weddings? If so why should they not have recused themselves. And Scalia, our Justice who would rather be Pope, do you think for a second that he would not rule against same-sex marriage? Why should he have not recused himself?
Justices who may have represented either the State or accused in private practice---should they recuse themselves in any case based on criminal law?
Aww, where's the Christian love, Nick?
we can always rely on Scalia for a good turn of phrase. Doesn't mean he is correct. I suspect Scalia allows his Catholicism to interfere with his legal reasoning on occasion.
Nonsense, try not to let irrational fear run away with otherwise cogent thinking.
that is probably why six of them are on the court
Breathe
New member
I get what you're saying, but this court seems to have taken it upon themselves to define marriage, so expecting them to back off from enforcing a civil right because of the religious beliefs of what is increasingly becoming a minority seems optimistic to me. It will be interesting to see what happens when religious liberty is challenged, as we know it will be.
The tide's turned--both sides can agree on that.
What a curious turn of events. For all the talk of being pro-family--for all the talk of those mysterious "family values"--for all the rhetoric about the "sanctity" of marriage--we've come to a point where the ability to marry and make families has become a sticking point.
What they've meant all along is their way, or the highway. Their values, or none. The same folks who talk the most often about "liberty" or "freedom" are the ones aghast they can't deny liberty and freedom to millions.
What a curious turn of events. For all the talk of being pro-family--for all the talk of those mysterious "family values"--for all the rhetoric about the "sanctity" of marriage--we've come to a point where the ability to marry and make families has become a sticking point.
What they've meant all along is their way, or the highway. Their values, or none. The same folks who talk the most often about "liberty" or "freedom" are the ones aghast they can't deny liberty and freedom to millions.
musterion
Well-known member
Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.So say's Pope Francis.
No S.S.M. in Catholic parishes.'
Daniel
You'll see it within five years, as soon as enough Catholics start demanding it. Many of them lean left as it is...just a matter of time before Rome complies.
This morning I think of a bit from C.S. Lewis (when he was right he was spot on) though I can't imagine he'd be crazy with this appropriation, given the circumstances. So it goes.
"If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren't quite so sharp; and that there's going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing."
"If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren't quite so sharp; and that there's going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing."