Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Bishop Gets it Right
From the statement by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The Court is indeed wrong again.
Published in General, Law, Marriage
The fact that gay couples can marry doesn’t diminish your freedom, the way they were granted the ability to marry diminishes your freedom. I won’t bother elaborating on that, you can read the four dissents from the court today to hear about how your freedom was diminished. They explain it far better than I could. But in short, your sanguinity in the face of Justices writing law, undermining subsidiarity and federalism, and arrogating to themselves what constitutes liberty and compelling behavior backed by the force of the state in the name of a newly discovered notion of liberty rather than law, is foolish.
The mockery made of the 14th amendment today is no less devastating than the mockery made of the commerce clause 80 years ago. The rule of law was severely damaged today and the power of the court to ignore the constitution and supplant it with their sense of right and wrong was further engrained in our governing tradition. Go find the Thomas More debate with his future son-in-law, William Roper in A Man for All Seasons. You are William Roper, Herbert.
The opposite side is really the right side for someone else. So we should probably have a law that says if you are a passenger in a car being driven on the wrong side you can’t say anything.
Thank you, Peter. I really needed a hopeful message after pouring through the media today.
Thanks to all of the Ricochetti for being so smart. My three finger tap on my MacBook pro to look up a definition has been used a lot in reading the posts today.
Don’t forget getting the Hispanic vote. We need that.
So, I’m ‘free’ not to get ‘gay married’. Great. But am I free to disapprove of ‘gay-marriage’? Can I teach my children that, while God loves each of us dearly and equally, he has a plan for marriage, and this is not it?
I’m not really concerned about how you organize your life, it your choice. (God’s big on free will, BTW). But the gay activists seem to be very concerned that I be made to agree with and support their lifestyle choices (that is, if I have any plans to earn a living or attend school or something of that nature). They’re quite militant and are prepared to use any means necessary to enforce agreement.
Will the institutions that I care about be effectively destroyed or disabled as a result of this decision? (Like churches and christian schools?).
Of course. Just be prepared for the consequences.
Well, I would not impose consequences on gay couples – other than lack of joined celebration and involvement in their choices (and I’m usually very nice and polite in real life). However, they would impose on me banishment from employment and society. They would tear down my institutions (burn them down, scatter the bricks and salt the earth!) So, its not really very fair is it?
Didn’t mean to be critical, just to state the case for socons. Sorry I misunderstood.
That’s now the price of living in a “free” society.
I’m not sure this merits a response. If you haven’t gotten the implications to “other’s” freedom by now, you likely won’t. But yes, you are correct to point out that your own life may not change much. I doubt that it would have changed much, either way. You are not (yet) personally impacted by much of what goes on in the world; if that is an argument against the importance of those things, I suppose there isn’t really much going in the world that is important.
I continue to be discouraged by my government but am very encouraged by the statement from Archbishop Kurtz and also from this email sent out by CatholicVote.org.
Procuring an abortion is an automatic excommunication:
Advocating or voting for abortion is another matter, and as you say that’s generally left up to the pastoral judgement of the local bishop.
Marriage is a sacrament.
Marriage predates the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United States by thousands of years.
Our government used to recognize marriage according to duly enacted statutes varying from state to state, now it imposes “marriage” in a novel, uniform, and infinitely malleable guise by judicial edict–in the name of freedom, of course.
Only if both parties are baptized.
Sorry, Jim, you’re wrong. What they’ve proved is that they don’t care what marriage is.