Posted on 06/26/2014 10:03:26 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Rev. Peter Gregory of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Fort Wayne said he’s not surprised by Wednesday’s court ruling that overturns Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriages.
“It’s a disappointment, but not a surprise the judge ruled in this way,” Gregory said. “The disappointment is that he failed to recognize what marriage is – a union between one man and one woman – and the unique social good that marriage between a man and a woman is.”
While the courts may be sending the nation in a headlong rush toward gay marriage, Gregory said they will not be the final arbiters.
“Ultimately, I believe history will be the judge of this social experiment we’re engaged in in the United States,” he said.
Pastor Wendell Brane of Trinity Evangelical Church said the ruling makes marriage meaningless.
“First, it is disturbing that one zealous, activist judge can overrule not only the will of the people, but thousands of years of cultural precedent and religious teachings. In a stroke of a pen, he has redefined the sacred institution of marriage,” Brane wrote in an email. “Second, his ruling will certainly contribute to the continued devaluation of marriage. There are now no legitimate arguments to prohibit the legalizing of polygamy or incest.
“Eventually, marriage itself will mean nothing.”
Brane said the ruling – unlike the marriage ban – is itself unconstitutional.
“As we have seen in other states, religious liberty will be severely threatened: Florists, bakers, caterers, photographers, and others will be forced to provide services to ceremonies they find morally objectionable,” Brane wrote. “I can only pray that our attorney general’s efforts to appeal this ruling will succeed.”
The Indiana Catholic Conference of Bishops said the Catholic Church accepts and loves people with same-sex attraction as brothers and sisters.
“At the same time, the church upholds the dignity and sanctity of marriage as a natural union established by God between one man and one woman, intended towards the establishment of a family in which children are born, raised, and nurtured,” the group said in a written statement signed by six bishops, including Kevin Rhoades of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese.
“This is not simply a matter of belief. It is at the very heart of the nature of marriage. Thus, it is not within the power of any institution, religious or secular, to redefine marriage since it is God who is its author.”
But a prominent Indiana Catholic endorsed federal Judge Richard Young’s decree that Indiana has violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause.
“All Hoosiers should feel welcome in their own state,” Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said in a statement. “A big part of feeling welcome is having the freedom to get married and build a family.
“Today’s ruling provides all Hoosiers with equal opportunity to enjoy this freedom and makes Indiana a more inclusive state.”
The office of Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said Coats will support state government efforts to appeal Young’s ruling.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd, did not make a public statement on the judge’s decision. Stutzman has said he believes marriage is “the union of one man and one woman.”
“All Hoosiers should feel welcome in their own state,” Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.
I hope Indianans are happy they elected this scumbag. Mourdock was dead on about the nazification of America.
“Eventually, marriage itself will mean nothing.”
I suppose if one relies on the state to define marriage for them it might seem like it means nothing. After all, to the state it’s just a contract that can be broken and resumed between any parties judges, pols, or the voting majority wants to include or exclude at any one time.
FReegards
That tax free string of the churches is really a chain and collar and it’s about to be pulled tight.
Ironically it was a tyrant who wrote the bill to shut up the pulpit. It hasn't been there since the founding of the nation. Churches by tradition were tax exempt with no interference tolerated by government. Lyndon Baines Johnson in a ploy to silence preachers in Texas opposition to him was the writer of that law.
Something tells me that even if churches withdrew of their own free will from the exemption in order to maintain freedom of speech in the pulpit, our Perverts in office the same as they forced others to serve homosexuals in Unholy observances will try and force churches to do homosexual marriages. We are headed down the road Canada went on where any sermons addressed at homosexuality will be called criminal level hate crimes. Churches all of them need to use their power of ex-communication and shunning of elected & appointed officials including judges who support, vote for, or force states into allowing gay marriage.
“But a prominent Indiana Catholic endorsed federal Judge Richard Young’s decree that Indiana has violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause.
“All Hoosiers should feel welcome in their own state,” Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.,...”
The journoflack who wrote this must believe a prominent democrat’s Catholicism supersedes that of the bishops, much like the dogmas of the Cardinal of the San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi.
It’s interesting that this headline says normal people are “irked,” but if someone says, “I think promotion of non-procreative relationships is destructive for society,” the media would described they “attacked, slammed, bashed.”
Beaurocrats and Congressional staffers should also be included in that shunning.
In other words, you're a bigot! Why?
"Shut up," they explained.
Good summary.
““First, it is disturbing that one zealous, activist judge can overrule not only the will of the people, but thousands of years of cultural precedent and religious teachings. In a stroke of a pen, he has redefined the sacred institution of marriage,” Brane wrote in an email. “Second, his ruling will certainly contribute to the continued devaluation of marriage. There are now no legitimate arguments to prohibit the legalizing of polygamy or incest.
“Eventually, marriage itself will mean nothing.”
Marriage has always been for children. They need both parents. It’s common sense. It’s for the social order of things. Children don’t always have both parents, but it’s pretty bad when the Supreme Court has basically said both parents are not required to properly raise children.
From homosexual “marriage” springs forth homosexual adoption or two lesbians having a kid through a sperm donor.
No father figures into the equation. Homo “marriage” will make this legit all over the country. Both parents are not needed. To hell with basic biology, basic social bonding. A man showing his son how to be a man, a woman showing her daughter how to be a woman.
Children will pay for the radical redefinition of marriage.
Children turn into adults. Children raised with no father, with no mother. To see the future, you only have to look inside a prison.
Welcome to the United States of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am glad I will be dead in a few years. I weep for my children and grandchildren. This country has finally went over to the darkside and there is no coming back.
Good observation.
“A man showing his son how to be a man”
It’s so obvious that an absent or present but unloving father is at the root of the gender confusion of so many males of the homosexual orientation. I feel like laughing at them when they say a male is born gay.
Actually everyone who claims church membership and engages in this needs to be shown the door. That is not to say churches can't have ministries and missions to help them straighten out but allowing homosexuality within the church and embracing it is wrong. It is one of the few sins called an abomination.
People forget it was considered so wrong Lot offered his daughters instead and they were rejected by the men seeking to rape the angels. Polygamy was more morally acceptable behavior though later rebuked but homosexuality has never been.
In my area a state a county next too mine has two gays seeking a divorce from their marriage obviously in another state. I fear it is simply an intentional attempt to bring gay marriage in to Tennessee by the divorce court. We do not allow gay marriages here.
There is the adoption option and it should be made easier the difficulty issues I'll explain in a minute. But at the same time it should not be reason for an abortion either. I spent 7th and 8th grade in a school for physically handicapped kids.
I have no biological kids. My first wife died early into our marriage before conceiving a child and my second wife had two kids and us having a child could have brought her or a baby we conceived death or very serious health issues for the child. Some strong medications were involved. I basically adopted {though not legally because dad wouldn't allow but didn't want them} her daughters and helped raise them. It all worked out.
On the other end of the spectrum adoption is becoming more and more difficult in the U.S. for several reasons the main one being the fault of the judicial system. A parent basically has to kill a child to have their parental rights terminated. At one point we were kinship foster parents and what I saw in the system turned my stomach.
Butch and Dike could walk into the states Dept of Children Services, take a few classes and Presto they got kids in the foster care system. Adoption as such wasn't really the agenda it was the pretense of family at the already harmed children's expense.
Then there were the real heart breakers. Kids taken form unfit parents and family stepped up to take them in which is right and should be so if they are fit. The state treats such as foster parents as well legally and in fact puts more demands upon them because of it.
Abused kids taken into custody 95% of the time in my state will go back home within three years unless a prison sentence prevents it. In the mean time the birth parents legally, physically, and emotionally use the system to make those parents and kids life a living hell. The goal of the parent is to get the kids to strangers who can be conned. You stand ZERO chance of ever adopting those kids. I've seen aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc in these classes who had the time and ability to raise the kids and give them stability into adulthood.
After class I'd catch the younger childless couples off to the side and tell them to go through private sources such as The Catholic Church.
Two lesbians we saw used the system to get their pretend family with the states blessings but kids in need of stable parents got nothing.
Everyone makes their own choices and has their reasons for them. I was talking about the big picture. A society that discourages natural family formation and promotes other alternatives - including baby-buying by homosexuals, births outside marriage, and childless marriages - is going to be replaced by a more energetic society.
It’s a simple matter of statistics. Look at Rome, look at us, look at Japan. Somebody will live on the Japanese islands in 200 years, but it largely won’t be the descendants of today’s Japanese. Unless they see large-scale repatriation of foreign-born ethnic Japanese, it won’t even be people of Japanese ethnicity.
I agree with you about the adoption/foster care problems. Practically everyone I know who has experience there is unhappy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.