Posted on 01/17/2015 3:22:48 PM PST by NYer
Washington, D.C., January 17, 2015 (Zenit.org) | 192 hits
The U. S. Supreme Court granted a request Friday to review the November 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding the constitutionality of marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The decision regarding same-sex marriage is expected in June or July.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, responded to the Court’s action, saying, “A decision by the Supreme Court on whether a state may define marriage as the union of one man and one woman may be the most significant Court decision since the Court’s tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision making abortion a constitutional right.”
The anniversary of that decision is next week, Jan. 22, and will be marked by the annual March for Life in D.C., as well as the West Coast Walk for Life.
Pope Francis just today spoke against a redefinition of marriage. At a meeting with families in Manila, he said: "While all too many people live in dire poverty, others are caught up in materialism and lifestyles which are destructive of family life and the most basic demands of Christian morality. This is the ideological colonization. The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life."
Archbishop Cordileone also noted, “It’s hard to imagine how the essential meaning of marriage as between the two sexes, understood in our nation for over 200 years, and consistent with every society throughout all of human history, could be declared illegal. To those arguing for a constitutional redefinition of marriage, one must ask: when did the Constitution suddenly mandate a novel and unfounded definition of marriage? To ask such a question is not a judgment on anyone. It is a matter of justice and truth. The central issue at stake is: what is marriage? The answer is: a bond which unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come from their union. Only a man and a woman can unite their bodies in a way that creates a new human being. Marriage is thus a unique and beautiful reality which a society respects to its benefit or ignores to its peril.”
Archbishop Cordileone added, “Let us pray that the Supreme Court will be guided by right reason and render a true and just decision upholding the constitutionality of states to respect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the coming months.
Can someone post the number of states that have already legalized gay marriage. Ping!
The Liberals on the Court will be conflicted about making a ruling that violates Sharia law.
There aren’t many states that have, at the state level, established homosexual “marriage.” In most cases, it’s been imposed by a Federal override of state law.
Why? Are they trying to hook up with each other?
Hasn’t every single district court already been taken over by the body snatchers? And wasn’t it until that was accomplished that they were waiting before pushing it up the ladder?
It seems to me that if the USSC rules that the marriage laws in a state are unconstitutional , then wouldn’t those couples that are married under those same laws are no longer married...
Wouldn’t they have to remarry to be legal?
Is it constitutional to restrict homosexuality because of the health hazards, as they do with smoking?
The Liberals on the Court will be conflicted about making a ruling that violates Sharia law.
In a strange way, the fear of radical Islam—if there really is any fear here in America—would hold left wing agendas at bay. But I don’t expect that to happen here. This is not going to go well, methinks.
But you are correct; nearly all have had it imposed by Federal Courts.
From a moral standpoint, I don't care if gays are married or not. It does not effect me at all... I certainly have not felt my traditional marriage weakened by gays marrying. But that's just me.
However, from a legal standpoint... unelected Federal judges imposing their wills on the States... that whole concept is an abomination.
The court will rule that homosexual marriage is a civil right and impose same on all 50,states.
Since the court has four strong liberals, and a 5th justice, Kennedy, who has been a forceful advocate for homosexual rights in the court, 5 of 9,justices are clearly in favor of homosexual marriage.
In 2013, Kennedy voted with the liberals in that 5-4 decision mandating federal recognition of homosexual marriage from states in which homosexual marriage had been legalized.
This next case this year will be the one which imposes homosexual marriage nationwide. Since we already know 5,out of 9 justices favor homosexual marriage, it is a foregone conclusion what the decision will be.
I think they’re just going to look at it as a contract between 2 people...and nothing more. No religious or moral application.
Homosexual marriage is really important.
Not at all. They’ll simply write in “except for those already married under the previous erroneous rules” and granfather ‘em all in.
There are over 30 states in which homosexual marriage is legal. However in the vast majority of them, it has been imposed by a court rather than through legislation.
Remember how the media celebrated homosexual marriage for an entire week when Obama came out for homosexual marriage? We will see the same when this court ruling comes down.
Will this be the end of this issue? Maybe not. Future court cases forcing polygamy or forcing churches to accommodate homosexual marriage could be in our future.
Yup.
And the willful abuse of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment will once again result in an outrage against the legitimate will of the People.
...”Procreation is the essence of life”...this is an unarguable truth and any individual or organization that says otherwise is not only wrong but clinically ill.
I don't, either. Sodomy is immoral regardless of the legal relationship of the parties involved.
However, the point of homosexual "marriage" as a Federal government project is to force every institution, every business, and every individual to pretend they approve of homosexual behavior. It is not about the "right" to live together, own property, inheritance, and so on ... that is all within the realm of contract law.
It is about forced approval, and about access to children. Which motive predominates, I can't say.
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.