Author Topic: What happened re SCOTUS DOMA (Read 1678 times)

Tiffany · « **on:** June 26, 2013, 09:16:11 AM »

:confused1:

JohnGrey · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2013, 09:34:00 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

:confused1:

Why are you confused? The Supreme Court, purely in the context of being in accord with the naturalism expressed by the Constitution of the United States, was entirely correct in striking down that law. Before I get a flurry of downvotes, please note that I said it was Constitutionally correct, not correct as expression of natural law. This is the kind of contradiction that most neo-conservatives or Constitutional shills, of which there are many even in the traditional Catholic community, refuse to see. When Congress or the SCOTUS or the President so blatantly violates the precepts of natural and divine law, they argue that those in question are abusing their power. In reality, such instances are among the few in which that are fully expressing the philosophy inherent in the Constitution. Personal liberty is the chiefest and most inviolable precept. All else is secondary. The SCOTUS knows this and ruled accordingly. Blame them if you wish, but also blame yourselves for all the times when you succuмbed to false patriotism in supporting the godless American way of life.

Tiffany · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:01:03 AM »

I wrote confused because I was trying to understand it.
Not sure what I've done to support the godless American way of life. I can hardly survive myself since early childhood.

:barf: :barf: :barf: Everyone stay off FB today..

Tiffany · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:08:54 AM »

I appreciate you explaining it!

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:12:05 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Tiffany
:confused1:

Why are you confused? The Supreme Court, purely in the context of being in accord with the naturalism expressed by the Constitution of the United States, was entirely correct in striking down that law. Before I get a flurry of downvotes, please note that I said it was Constitutionally correct, not correct as expression of natural law. This is the kind of contradiction that most neo-conservatives or Constitutional shills, of which there are many even in the traditional Catholic community, refuse to see. When Congress or the SCOTUS or the President so blatantly violates the precepts of natural and divine law, they argue that those in question are abusing their power. In reality, such instances are among the few in which that are fully expressing the philosophy inherent in the Constitution. Personal liberty is the chiefest and most inviolable precept. All else is secondary. The SCOTUS knows this and ruled accordingly. Blame them if you wish, but also blame yourselves for all the times when you succuмbed to false patriotism in supporting the godless American way of life.

Amen!

d15 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:13:29 AM »

There were two rulings in two separate cases.

The first essentially held that laws regarding marriage are a state matter, and that the federal government cannot get involved, nor can it "discriminate" by giving federal benefits to some legally married couples but not others. In other words, DOMA is unconstitutional because it denied federal benefits to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples who are legally "married" under certain state laws. The opinion said nothing on whether or not states that do not permit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage" may continue to do so. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

The second dealt with California's ban on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage. A lower court had ruled the ban unconstitutional. At that point, the California government decided to stop defending the law in court. A group in favor of the ban took the state government's place in defending the law. The Supreme Court held that the group had no standing to defend the law in court, and that only the state government can do that. The opinion said nothing on whether or not other states that do not permit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage" may continue to do so, but by denying standing to the group, it left the lower court ruling intact, which stuck down the California ban. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.

Bottom line, DOMA is unconstitutional, but the Court did not rule on whether or not individual states may continue to forbid ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ "marriage." So, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples who were "married" in certain states will begin to receive federal benefits, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs will begin to get "married" in California, but nowhere else (for now...

)

Charlemagne · « **Reply #6 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:15:15 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Tiffany
:confused1:

Why are you confused? The Supreme Court, purely in the context of being in accord with the naturalism expressed by the Constitution of the United States, was entirely correct in striking down that law. Before I get a flurry of downvotes, please note that I said it was Constitutionally correct, not correct as expression of natural law. This is the kind of contradiction that most neo-conservatives or Constitutional shills, of which there are many even in the traditional Catholic community, refuse to see. When Congress or the SCOTUS or the President so blatantly violates the precepts of natural and divine law, they argue that those in question are abusing their power. In reality, such instances are among the few in which that are fully expressing the philosophy inherent in the Constitution. Personal liberty is the chiefest and most inviolable precept. All else is secondary. The SCOTUS knows this and ruled accordingly. Blame them if you wish, but also blame yourselves for all the times when you succuмbed to false patriotism in supporting the godless American way of life.

This is an excellent post, John. After all, it was the SCOTUS that ruled abortion to be legal. I remind my children often that what's legal in this godless land is often immoral and that false patriotism just might send you to hell in the end. For example, how many "evangelicals" posing as "patriots" cheered "israel" as it dropped bombs on Lebanon, killing Christians by using funds sent by the Amen Corner in this country? It's truly a disgusting spectacle. God, family, country (sometimes).

JohnGrey · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:25:05 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

I wrote confused because I was trying to understand it.
Not sure what I've done to support the godless American way of life. I can hardly survive myself since early childhood.

:barf: :barf: :barf: Everyone stay off FB today..

I'm sorry, I really should've used "ourselves" rather than "yourselves", as I'm just as guilty of it. If not in the sense of publicly and vocally supporting it, then assenting to it by silence, or by my tacitly legitimizing the system by voting before I was Catholic. As much as modernism, with which it is inextricably tied, Americansim is one of the most dangerous heresies faced today by Catholics of good faith. Modernism, at least, is fairly overt in its contravention of the immemorial faith. Americanism, and the religious latitudinarism is engenders, has blunted the zeal of so many millions of Catholics that have had the misfortune to live in this country.

Luker · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:31:17 AM »

I am guessing few on this board are surprised at this ruling.

Probably a dumb question, but was there any fight out of the AmChurch Bishops on this? Maybe at least a couple of Bishops put up a public fight?

Luke

Charlemagne · « **Reply #9 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:33:33 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Probably a dumb question, but was there any fight out of the AmChurch Bishops on this? Maybe at least a couple of Bishops put up a public fight?

You made my day, Luke!

Tiffany · « **Reply #10 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:35:24 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: Tiffany
I wrote confused because I was trying to understand it.
Not sure what I've done to support the godless American way of life. I can hardly survive myself since early childhood.

:barf: :barf: :barf: Everyone stay off FB today..

I'm sorry, I really should've used "ourselves" rather than "yourselves", as I'm just as guilty of it. If not in the sense of publicly and vocally supporting it, then assenting to it by silence, or by my tacitly legitimizing the system by voting before I was Catholic. As much as modernism, with which it is inextricably tied, Americansim is one of the most dangerous heresies faced today by Catholics of good faith. Modernism, at least, is fairly overt in its contravention of the immemorial faith. Americanism, and the religious latitudinarism is engenders, has blunted the zeal of so many millions of Catholics that have had the misfortune to live in this country.

It's a huge in the pro-life group too. When the pro-choice folks accuse them of not caring about children after birth they are right. GOP support is very much a part of "pro-life work" here. It's even on this board.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:35:56 AM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Why are you confused? The Supreme Court, purely in the context of being in accord with the naturalism expressed by the Constitution of the United States, was entirely correct in striking down that law.

That is a garbage post.

The US Constitution isn't naturalist.

Quote

Before I get a flurry of downvotes, please note that I said it was Constitutionally correct, not correct as expression of natural law.

It's not correct. You're a fanatic.

Quote

This is the kind of contradiction that most neo-conservatives or Constitutional shills, of which there are many even in the traditional Catholic community, refuse to see.

No, when the Constitution was drafted the idea that states could change the definition of marriage and so make sodomites eligible for benefits would never have been accepted. I wouldn't even have been accepted 10 years ago. It has nothing to do with naturalism or deism. It has to do with pro-sodomite renegades.

Quote

When Congress or the SCOTUS or the President so blatantly violates the precepts of natural and divine law, they argue that those in question are abusing their power. In reality, such instances are among the few in which that are fully expressing the philosophy inherent in the Constitution.

This is a lie. You cannot say that the paganism of the Constitution is equivalent to Sodom and Gomorrah. That is nonsense.

Quote

Personal liberty is the chiefest and most inviolable precept. All else is secondary.

That is not what the Constitution teaches.

Quote

The SCOTUS knows this and ruled accordingly.

Wrong. This is a garbage post, where you refuse to admit distinctions, and pretend that the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is equivalent to stating that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage must be recognized by the Federal Government. That is an absurd leap, a complete failure of logic on your part.

Quote

Blame them if you wish, but also blame yourselves for all the times when you succuмbed to false patriotism in supporting the godless American way of life.

You cannot blame the Constitution for the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby, and you can't blame American patriotism either, but it sure is convenient.

You do essentially deny that there are degrees of corruption. If a country is pagan and accepts some variety of liberalism, in your mind it's equivalent to Constitutional approbation of Sodom and Gomorrah. That's simply, patently false.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #12 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:39:30 AM »

Quote from: Luker

I am guessing few on this board are surprised at this ruling.

Probably a dumb question, but was there any fight out of the AmChurch Bishops on this? Maybe at least a couple of Bishops put up a public fight?

Luke

:roll-laugh2:

I expect there will be some kind of statement issued by the USCCB, but I also expect that it will be wholly without teeth, either in terms of ramifications for those responsible for or supporting these travesties despite having nominal membership to the conciliar antichurch. It will also be without the unflinching expounding of Catholic dogma, and to the eternal reward destined for sodomites and those that abet them. Remember, only those that believe in objective truth are ever condemned by the usurpers of the Holy See or their pederast minions.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:47:14 AM »

The Constitution certainly is in harmony with religious indifferentism but one cannot say that it denies supernatural realities or excludes the Natural Law of a Creator.

It cannot be justly called naturalist.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2013, 10:50:28 AM »

The problem in this case is not the Constitution.

It's three Jєωs and a nominal Catholic Irishman and Puerto Rican woman.