Posted on 01/18/2015 6:48:34 AM PST by C19fan
The problem with the institution of marriage is that it became itself wed to government programs and the tax code. That was fine in a moral, God fearing society. But in our current immoral, secular society it leads to the perversion of the institution.
Sadly, most of the churches in America have been happy to play along with the destruction of marriage. A more appropriate response would have been to separate religious marriage from government and tax policies.
Pressed and bullied by whom using exactly what to influence his last minute change of opinion?
I'm interested in your answer since you so categorically stated it was "not blackmail" but bullying.
After the Obamacare ruling I have zero confidence in SCOTUS.
I’m sure Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg will come up with some gimmick to avoid upsetting the gays and liberals.
I don’t think he had to be blackmailed. My sister, who has her own tax prep business, said way before the decision that it would be found to be a tax and therefore legal. I debated her on this point at the time and she was once again irritatingly correct.
I'm really confident that homo marriage will be returned to the states, unless Democrats want to become extinct in 2016.
But that would lower my estimation of him even further. Even a good and strong man might surrender to blackmail for love. But if he isn't even strong enough to put up with a little toothless carping, he can be pushed into doing anything.
Peace,
SR
When the legislative powers that be in this country can’t make responsible decisions regarding our national defense,then there’s no reason to believe they would do any better making decisions about something that is really not in their purview to start with.
The logic is plain. Their interpretation is convoluted.
In the case they cited, the court "ruled that the Constitution bars the federal government from treating traditional marriages differently from same-sex marriages in states that legalize both".
States define marriage. The federal government must recognize that marriage, whatever it is. As it should be.
That ruling says nothing about whether another state has to recognize that marriage, nor does it instruct the states who qualifies for marriage.
Why would he succumb to that when also pressured by 3 other Associate Justices? Why write his own unique opinion?
Romans 1:..
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
The Sacrament of Marriage is clearly Religious in nature.
The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a Religion, or impede the exercise of a Religion
Exactly. I wish Christians would do this anyway, to the best of their ability. Just bite the bullet and forego the “benefits” of state-licensed “marriage” and return it to being a church-sanctioned sacrament.
He was pressed and bullied?
You are so ESP!
Was it fine? Really?
Or are the things we are reaping now consequent of the reaping of bad seed?
I lean toward the stance that the Constitution doesn't delegate any power over the issue of marriage to the federal government and therefore is not a federal issue. Others here contend that it's been a federal issue from the start because of monies paid to the widows of soldiers.
But in our current immoral, secular society it leads to the perversion of the institution.
Humanity has always been immoral; that is why the Constitution is/was so great: it stripped most power from the [federal] government.
[I've been called an anarchist
because I think any federal agency (a) not specifically commissioned by the Constitution, or (b) carrying out Constitutionally justified functions ought to be abolished.]
The court is going to discover that something that has never existed has suddenly become a constitutional right.
And people will say, yep. That’s right.
This is what happens when people unmoored from simple morality reach critical mass.
Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is what SCOTUS does well.
My fear is that they will be forced into more than silence. Silence is never good enough for these people. Live and let live, doesn't work with bullies, and that is what the "gay rights" movement have become, bullies.
I have been waiting for years for the first homosexual couple to present themselves to some Catholic Church and demand to be married. When refused, then the lawsuites begin; and, because this whole thing got going because of the massive number of anti-discrimination laws that have been enacted, the courts will again decide something that should have been left to individual states.
I think this is another Roe v. Wade, and 30, 50 years from now, we will still be arguing this and protesting this decision.
Pope Leo XIII warned about the civil authorities being involved 130+ years ago. To the state in the modern era, marriage can only be defined by whatever judges, pols, or a majority of voters think it is at any one time. That’s it, it doesn’t have any other way to do it.
Many have considered the state’s definition false for centuries, many more since the state came up with no-fault divorce. Now the state created ‘gay marriage.’ In another hundred years the state will probably embrace the marriage of your own child clones or animals with human brains and actual marriage will be outlawed. No stranger than telling someone a hundred years ago that something called ‘gay marriage’ is accepted by 30+ states in 2015.
Freegards
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.