The Defense of Marriage Act is ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
#31
(06-26-2013, 04:49 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: I'm confused. There is a transgendered person here? If yes then I am sincerely interested in hearing how this person is able to uphold the Catholic faith. Maybe there should be a separate thread for this? or maybe it is so simple that it can be summed up in a few words.

Yes, I am a transwoman.  This topic has been discussed thoroughly over the past month and I have nothing to add to the discussion.  Please do not derail this thread.

Quote:Anyway...since we have a lawyer here do you think I can get a short explanation on how it is possible that the majority of California voted against gay marriage, yet the small population of supporters was able to get it overturned? Does this not violate the rights of the state majority that voted against same sex marriage?

Our legal system in the United States is not purely majoritarian.  For example, our Constitution has a Bill of Rights.  These rights ensure that the will of the majority does not run roughshod over individuals and minority groups (of all kinds, including religious minorities, not just racial or sexual minorities).  This is what protects you from Barack HUSSEIN Obama, aka Hitler.  The court decisions in California were based on those courts' interpretation and application of rights contained in the federal and California state constitutions, including the right to equal protection of the laws.

Aside from these positive law considerations, you must surely agree as a general matter that natural law principles are not subject to being vitiated by majorities.  In other words, you really don't want a purely majoritarian system, do you?  It would be a nightmare.

Quote:Thanks!

You're quite welcome.
Reply
#32
This seamless garment approach is incorrect.  What happened today is a much worst thing than a divorce.  A divorce unlawfully claims that an existing marriage no longer exists, what happened today is that the highest court declared that it is discrimination (in other words persecution) to say that two people of the same sex cannot marry.

Don't worry I condemn divorce as well, just as I do fornication and self abuse, but the gravity of these sins and confusion coming from them is different.  Our belief that marriage is till death is based upon supernatural truths, our belief that only marriage can exist between a man and a women is based upon natural truths.  The level of darkness we have just entered into is deeper.

We need to make reparation.  
Reply
#33
(06-26-2013, 04:40 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Ursus, just cut it out. Discuss the topic at hand and desist from getting personal, espeically if you're going to go about it with ridiculous nonsense like the order in which a poster puts "Catholic" when describing herself. Clare has done nothing in this thread but uphold Catholic teaching. So stop NOW.

Sorry. And I'm not trying to derail. His/her choice to change is cool with you and others here. Transgender Traditional Catholics have views on gay marriage like the rest of us.

CB, I apologize. I need to adapt to the changes, no disrespect.
Reply
#34
(06-26-2013, 05:21 PM)Ursus Wrote: Sorry. And I'm not trying to derail. His/her choice to change is cool with you and others here. Transgender Traditional Catholics have views on gay marriage like the rest of us.

What's my view?
Reply
#35
(06-26-2013, 05:24 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 05:21 PM)Ursus Wrote: Sorry. And I'm not trying to derail. His/her choice to change is cool with you and others here. Transgender Traditional Catholics have views on gay marriage like the rest of us.

What's my view, smartass?

I don't think it's right that you are allowed to say anything you like, and be rude, but no one can say anything which might offend you in the slightest.
Reply
#36
(06-26-2013, 05:27 PM)Meg Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 05:24 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 05:21 PM)Ursus Wrote: Sorry. And I'm not trying to derail. His/her choice to change is cool with you and others here. Transgender Traditional Catholics have views on gay marriage like the rest of us.

What's my view, smartass?

I don't think it's right that you are allowed to say anything you like, and be rude, but no one can say anything which might offend you in the slightest.

CB, I apologize again. Views = thoughts/feelings etc.

The problem is with me and I haven't adapted to these changes. Today as Catholics we all feel saddened by what the court has done.
Reply
#37
(06-26-2013, 05:34 PM)Ursus Wrote: CB, I apologize again. Views = thoughts/feelings etc.

The problem is with me and I haven't adapted to these changes. Today as Catholics we all feel saddened by what the court has done.

Ursus, I have reported the Court's decision.  I have told Meg in this thread that I hold the teaching of the Church on this subject.  And I have explained to Morgan, in response to his question, why majorities do not always prevail in the United States.

I'm not sure what there is for you to "adapt" to in what I have said.  I think you're being passive aggressive.  In any case, that's all I have to say to you.
Reply
#38
(06-26-2013, 04:03 PM)Juanthetuba Wrote: Well I was not surprised by this decision, although the speed by which they had arrived to it did, but I just don't feel anymore allegiance to this nation anymore. My heart weeps for my friends who have rejoiced and supported this decision. 


Kyrie Eleison!

This is exactly what I'm feeling. Most of the people fighting for this aren't even gay. Only 2% of the population or 6-7million people are. And only a fraction of that will get married.

If 2.1 million get married a year now, figure it's about 40k of gays who would, per year.
Reply
#39
(06-26-2013, 05:40 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:03 PM)Juanthetuba Wrote: Well I was not surprised by this decision, although the speed by which they had arrived to it did, but I just don't feel anymore allegiance to this nation anymore. My heart weeps for my friends who have rejoiced and supported this decision. 


Kyrie Eleison!

This is exactly what I'm feeling. Most of the people fighting for this aren't even gay. Only 2% of the population or 6-7million people are. And only a fraction of that will get married.

If 2.1 million get married a year now, figure it's about 40k of gays who would, per year.

One may not want to post things, imho, that could be possibly be interpreted as seditious or could cause harm to this forum.  (I hope Vox will forgive my moment of mini-mod'ing.)
Reply
#40
(06-26-2013, 04:40 PM)cgraye Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 04:06 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: That's the thing. Marriage -- not the Sacrament in itself, of course -- was destroyed a long, long time ago, about when Henry VIII had it bad for Anne Boleyn. It's been downhill ever since. It isn't gay "marriage" that's messing us up; it's divorce, and that's been a done deal for a long time. Gay "marriage" is just another symptom.

I disagree.  Divorce and its cultural acceptance is certainly a problem and did indeed open the door to other things, but there is not a logical connection from divorce to gay marriage.  Gay marriage is a logical contradiction in itself.  And homosexual acts are always gravely immoral.  But God himself allowed divorce in the past in some circumstances, and even now, non-sacramental marriages can be dissolved in some cases.  Gay marriage is a different thing altogether.  The acceptance of gay marriage cannot follow logically from the acceptance of divorce (or the abuse of it), though it certainly follows in the practical sense of people simply wanting more sexual "freedom".  Divorce does not alter the meaning of natural marriage, but gay marriage does.

Allowing divorce is the bigger problem and is what  reformulated the definition of marriage from a lifelong Sacrament for the purpose of procreation (God-willing) to two people living together until they don't want to any longer, children having nothing to do with it. If the latter is the accepted definition of "marriage," then gay "marriage" makes "sense."  My bigger point is that "marriage" is already dead and has been dead for years.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)