The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The gay lobby will angle to work this exactly like anti-miscegenation laws which means they will.

When your predictions for the future come true, we'll talk about it.

You attribute characteristics to the "gay lobby" that simply haven't been shown to exist.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: [post=19497574]ketsuko

Here is the point - If the government decides to punish churches (or other houses of worship) for whom marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman by making them pay taxes, then that is the Federal Government making a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, something the 1st Amendment expressly forbids it to do.

This leads us to a showdown between Amendments - 1st and 14th. No matter who wins that decision, the entire country loses.

reply:

I didn't say anything about taxing as punishment for refusing service. I said tax if they want to have a place in policy making in general. Because let's face it, religion is a business and massive land holder that is not paying into the system they are asking to control.

It seems to me this is allowing a marriage in a legal term only vs marriage, or the right to it only allowed under the churches power, which sounds like they want ownership of the word marriage.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Its a 2 way street, respect is earned, and churches wont be forced to mary same sex couples, so plz stop with making stuff up to prove your point.

You should be proud that your country decided that love and equality rules the day.

Give it up. I don't give a rip what the gays do. They can go off and marry for all I care, but the history of the issue here is simple. They don't want to live and let live. They want revenge, so they won't leave it alone.

Basically, most of the gay rights movement is and has been a bait and switch as acknowledged by activists themselves.

I read the article you referenced, all three pages of it and what struck me was that the Gay activists.....can't lose in the US as things are currently set up. The Churches, Mosques and Synagogues will be forced to perform same sex marriages or they'll be sued and or taxed into oblivion. Their only choice will be to quit performing any marriages.

What's interesting is that the Christians will likely, after a bit of resistance, give it up and throw in the towel.

The Muslims on the other hand? Bwahahahahah, this is going to be FUN to watch!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I linked to an article that talks about it with relevant quotes and links pulled from gay activists in it. You can chase them down and show me how they were taken out of context.

a reply to: Mandroid7

How is it ownership of the word if the people in a congregation want to determine for themselves that marriage for them is between a man and a woman and they will only perform services that way?

How is it any less "ownership" of the word for the Federal Government to say that a marriage is between any two people now?

And what makes either group right to do it that way and force the other to bend to their will?

I'll answer for the first group: no one forces you to join that group, but for the Federal Government, we are ALL forced to dance to its strings.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Is not going to happen, is a reason why we got separation of church and state, interestingly people can not separate the church from the state, when it comes to rulings like the same sex marriage, that is why is confusion on this latest Supreme court ruling.

Churches are not obligated to anything as they are protected under freedom of religion.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure you understand the win of today, it has nothing to do with forcing churches to marry gays, its a win for love and equality, you know the stuff jesus talked about.

You simply haven't been paying attention to the writing on the wall. Either that or you are only looking at what Thomas Sowell calls "two dimensional" thinking. Cause/Effect.

On the surface, that's what the ruling would seem to be, but underneath, they labeled marriage a "civil right" which means that if anyone refuses to marry a same sex couple, they have violated a civil right. That means a gay couple can indeed go to a church (or mosque or synagogue) and demand to be married. If the church refuses, they are violating a new civil right which they can then be prosecuted under law for.

If you think people will simply respect religious feelings now, I don't think you have been paying attention.

YEah and then you make MARTYRS out of them when they refuse. Its their right to refuse marrying someone if it is a religious belief. teh justice of peace can do marriages instead. ALso Seperation of church and state should apply.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Catholic priests condemning anything to do with homosexuality seems kinda odd to me, Given their penchant for young boys.

Actually I guess that's not homosexuality at all...it's pedophilia.

Lest we forget.....

www.ranker.com...

and the Bishops that covered it up...The conference of Catholic Bishops has no right to "condemn" anything!

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face

And if they end their tax exemption, then they are subject to tax law which means Congress has made a law respecting religion, now hasn't it? That would seem to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

That they have tax exemption means that Congress has already made a law with respect to religion.
To gain exemption, one must prove to the IRS that you are a true religion. By making any such decision, there is a violation of the first amendment.

In order to qualify for exemption status, a church must stay out of state business.

Then I guess the entire tax code is un-constitutional. I can live with that.

Not at all. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In giving tax exemptions to churches, there is an establishment of religion.
Not all churches are exempt. This means that there is some sort of established criteria for exemption.
Therefore churches being exempt is against the first amendment.
Either all are exempt, or none are. You can't have it both ways.
Therefore, if the granting of tax exemption to churches requires establishing a law, THAT is unconstitutional.

This just emphasizes how silly it is to grant special privileges to organizations that are based on intangibles.

It's 2015. The need for mythology and fairytales is long dead. Enlightenment and reason prevails.

"Condemning" a ruling from the SCOTUS based on medieval sensibilities is absolutely laughable.

"Condemn"?

"Condemn not, lest ye be condemned".

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God".

The world would be more peaceful if people lived with acceptance and compassion loving thy neighbour as thyself.

"Hatred causes strife, but Love covers all sins."

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure you understand the win of today, it has nothing to do with forcing churches to marry gays, its a win for love and equality, you know the stuff jesus talked about.

You simply haven't been paying attention to the writing on the wall. Either that or you are only looking at what Thomas Sowell calls "two dimensional" thinking. Cause/Effect.

On the surface, that's what the ruling would seem to be, but underneath, they labeled marriage a "civil right" which means that if anyone refuses to marry a same sex couple, they have violated a civil right. That means a gay couple can indeed go to a church (or mosque or synagogue) and demand to be married. If the church refuses, they are violating a new civil right which they can then be prosecuted under law for.

If you think people will simply respect religious feelings now, I don't think you have been paying attention.

What a load of crap.

This is from the full text of the decision:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those
who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate
with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts,
same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to
continue the family structure they have long revered. The
same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for
other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing samesex
marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a
matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage
those who disagree with their view in an open and searching
debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit
the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

This ruling says that the states can not pass a ban on same sex marriage. It doesn't lay any groundwork for churches to be sued and I'm getting tired of hearing that nonsense from the religious haters trying to play their persecution card.

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Badgered1

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mandroid7
End your tax exemptions or shut your face

And if they end their tax exemption, then they are subject to tax law which means Congress has made a law respecting religion, now hasn't it? That would seem to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

That they have tax exemption means that Congress has already made a law with respect to religion.
To gain exemption, one must prove to the IRS that you are a true religion. By making any such decision, there is a violation of the first amendment.

In order to qualify for exemption status, a church must stay out of state business.

Then I guess the entire tax code is un-constitutional. I can live with that.

Not at all. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In giving tax exemptions to churches, there is an establishment of religion.
Not all churches are exempt. This means that there is some sort of established criteria for exemption.
Therefore churches being exempt is against the first amendment.
Either all are exempt, or none are. You can't have it both ways.
Therefore, if the granting of tax exemption to churches requires establishing a law, THAT is unconstitutional.

This just emphasizes how silly it is to grant special privileges to organizations that are based on intangibles.

It's 2015. The need for mythology and fairytales is long dead. Enlightenment and reason prevails.

"Condemning" a ruling from the SCOTUS based on medieval sensibilities is absolutely laughable.

And you are exhibit one as to why they will go into churches, sue and freedom of religion will be taken away. There are four justices who more or less agree with you, and all they have to do bring Kennedy along for the ride.

And this country that wouldn't even exist except for people seeking a place to practice their own faiths loses that core.

a reply to: Answer

And the government attorney already indicated that they will absolutely have no problem trying to infringe on it anyway no matter what the SCOTUS wrote in their ruling.

originally posted by: 5thNovember
My only complaint is a constitutional one. A church should not be forced to carry out something it doesn't believe in based on its religion regardless of what the other thinks. It's not your religion so stay out of it. Wanna get married? Go to your local licence office and get it official no religious ceremony needed after all the gays aren't religious so why force religious people to partake? I am for gays having partnership but a marriage it is not.

Except the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with churches.

Nobody is forcing churches to do anything.

The religious people really need to get over themselves. This ruling won't affect a damn thing you do.

a reply to: Answer

It sets the precedent.

It creates SS marriage as a civil right which means that anyone refusing the perform SS marriage is now denying a civil right.

It will be tried.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Answer

And the government attorney already indicated that they will absolutely have no problem trying to infringe on it anyway no matter what the SCOTUS wrote in their ruling.

Not at all.

The Solicitor General admitted that some religious schools COULD POSSIBLY lose tax-exempt status if they come out as hardcore anti-gay marriage. The whole argument arose from a hypothetical discussion that revolved around colleges that spoke out against interracial marriage in the 60's.

The Solicitor General never said "churches will lose tax exempt status" and he never even said religious schools would lose tax exempt status. He simply admitted that there was a possibility that the situation could be similar to what happened in the 1960's.

You should try getting your facts straight before attempting this argument. That means reading what was actually said instead of believing the spin doctors.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Answer

And the government attorney already indicated that they will absolutely have no problem trying to infringe on it anyway no matter what the SCOTUS wrote in their ruling.

Guess the government attorney has a crystal ball or something? Does he have lottery numbers too?

Even if someone tries, they won't succeed, based on the 1st amendment. Don't be scared. No one is going to take your guns and no one is going to force a church to marry gays.

a reply to: ketsuko

Here is the point - If the government decides to punish churches (or other houses of worship) for whom marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman by making them pay taxes, then that is the Federal Government making a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, something the 1st Amendment expressly forbids it to do.

Are you just making this stuff up? This ruling in no way allows the government to force churches to marry gays because that would violate freedom of religion. Obama said as much back in 2013.
Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Answer

It sets the precedent.

It creates SS marriage as a civil right which means that anyone refusing the perform SS marriage is now denying a civil right.

It will be tried.

So what if it's tried?

People TRY things all the time. IF a gay couple tries to sue a church, the case will be thrown out. End of story.

On the flip side, many people will become ordained ministers and thrive on the new business from gays who want to get married.

I know you think there are a bunch of spiteful gays out there who want to force churches to marry them just to "stick it to em" but that's a load of crap.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Mandroid7

How is it ownership of the word if the people in a congregation want to determine for themselves that marriage for them is between a man and a woman and they will only perform services that way?

How is it any less "ownership" of the word for the Federal Government to say that a marriage is between any two people now?

And what makes either group right to do it that way and force the other to bend to their will?

I'll answer for the first group: no one forces you to join that group, but for the Federal Government, we are ALL forced to dance to its strings.

It is 100% ownership of the word and beneficiaries. Otherwise they wouldn't care. You are not staying on point again and adding your own additions to the comment. "people of the congregation" -It is the church. They want to be the only ones to define what is a legit marriage. They are probably protecting an income source, if you dig deep enough.

It is less control, by the gov, by not allowing states to block marriages. Allowing gay couples get the perks non-gay couples get by marriage. They are not forcing marriages. They are not forcing churches to do what they don't want. They are forcing states to recognize them, that is all.

Equality is the name of the game.