Posted on 04/26/2015 4:40:53 PM PDT by Steelfish
http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/amicus-briefs/upload/Obergefell-v-Hodges.pdf
NOTE: NY Times Story http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/opinion/sunday/its-not-gay-marriage-vs-the-church-anymore.html?_r=0 It’s Not Gay Marriage vs. the Church Anymore
By WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE Jr.APRIL 25, 2015
NEW HAVEN — THIS week, committed gay couples seeking the right to marry will take their case to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges are supported by amicus briefs submitted by a variety of institutions and people, from the former N.F.L. player Chris Kluwe to Ken Mehlman, a past chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Religious groups are on their side, too. While several prominent religious organizations have filed briefs in opposition, leaders in the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the official organizations of conservative and reform Judaism, and more than 1,900 theologians signed a brief urging the court to legalize same-sex marriage.
NY Times link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/opinion/sunday/its-not-gay-marriage-vs-the-church-anymore.html?_r=0
Bookmark for later reading
My understanding is the sexual perverts argue their case in SCOTUS this week. I wish them living hell and the total wrath of GOD.
Any indication that anyone is pointing out to the court that “coupling” male & female trends to have consequences in the interest of the state (reproduction, both as a matter of sustaining the population, and not leaving the helpless as wards of the state), while “coupling” male/male or female/female have absolutely no such consequences? Without that point being made clear and strong, our side will lose.
“Any indication that anyone is pointing out to the court that “coupling” male & female trends to have consequences in the interest of the state (reproduction, both as a matter of sustaining the population, and not leaving the helpless as wards of the state), while “coupling” male/male or female/female have absolutely no such consequences?”
If I read it right, I agree with you. The only reason the state need care about marriage at all is procreation. Marriage is all about the children and nothing else. They are treating it like it’s for the gratification of adults, when it’s a restriction on adults in favor of the child.
What you say is plain as day — male-female marriage is bedrock of civilization and essential to healthy child rearing.
But gays and their media allies engage in ridiculous ad hominem arguments against the very institution of heterosexual marriage. They say heterosexuals have divorces, shacked up couples, and out-of-wedlock babies, so there is nothing wrong with bringing gays into the mix. But most Christians do not celebrate divorces, shacking up, or out-of-wedlock births. Saying gay is OK is doing exactly that. Celebrating sin.
Just try getting that over to any Catholic bishop, though. They still think irreverent modern dismissal of Genesis (based not on tradition but "new knowledge") is just tickety boo with no negative baggage whatsoever. The most conservative of them wants a Middle Ages with evolution.
This has nothing to do with any of that. It’s a legal argument addressed to a court with liberal justices appointed by Clinton and Obama. The Catholic Church is the last bastion standing. Period.
You will note from the NY Time article that many mainline PROTESTANT churches have filed briefs supporting gay marriage.
It seems to me that religions consider “marriage” to be a holy sacrament. In this respect, government is prohibited from “establishing religion” [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;] or redefining it. Only the religious body can do that.
The realm of government is civil. It has the capacity to define “civil unions” and contracts anyway it wishes. In America, people are guaranteed equal rights. It would seem that civil unions must provide for unions between any two adults who desire it. Although I would draw the line between siblings and offspring and possible first cousins because of the genetic issues.
Yeah and nothing really new about it either, its been at least 25 years, since the Baptist Church my Grandparents attended (since the 40’s) up in Oregon, had a new preacher that did a gay tolerance/embrace the gays sermon one Sunday... I have heard rumors of other possible issues at the time... but almost immediately after that sermon, the Church split and over half the congregation went and built a new church, hired a new minister and started their own non denominational church
Personally, I think the problem of dealing with unnatural perverse use of genitalia be put back on the same basis that Jehovah did in its spread in a culture: fiery death to the perpetrators, with a limited opportunity for those who have wrongly tolerated the practice to escape from the punishment, or else be included in the sentencing of its practitioners.
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.