No, it doesn't. It says that the Constitution and laws and treaties made pursuant thereto are the supreme law of the land. If a law violates the constitution, it is null and void, as being unconstitutional, or as being unconstitutional in the application given. (An example of the latter: you can make driving over the speed limit on a superhighway illegal, and enforce it fairly. But if as a police agency you consistently let white people get away with speeding and ticket blacks who speed, or let people from your state speed but ticket people with out-of-state plates, you're breaking the equal protection clause, and the judge is honorbound to throw out those tickets. Not because the drivers weren't breaking the law -- they were -- or because the law is unconstitutional in itself -- it certainly isn't -- but because its unequal enforcement violates the constitution.)
well, then it is personal interpretation as to whether DOMA is unconstitutional or not. However if it was unconstitutional I don't think it would have stood for as long as it has.
There are arguments that the Federal DOMA was ultra vires -- Congress passing a law it had no constitutional right to pass -- depending on the interpretation placed on the full faith and credit clause. I won't go into those arguments unless you're especially interested, but kindly note that they have been made, and they're not 'a stretch.'
exactly, people still cannot conclude prohibiting gay marriage is against the constitution. Freedom of Rights is a very conditional thing as you may already know considering we have things like obscenity laws and laws against prostitution and such. So our freedom is contingent on the law of the land.
Pretty accurate summary. Of course, from some points of view, calling this the 'Defense of Marriage Act' is like some state passing a 'Defense of Christianity Act' prohibiting disruptive behavior in and around a church during its services, but excluding Catholics from its definition of Christian.
well that is kinda a vague example considering the definition of marriage is pretty clean cut. One man and one woman in union.
Well, to start with, you're engaging in circular reasoning there, by presupposing that hermeneutics doesn't come into play because you've already assumed that the question raised is against the Bible. See your second sentence and then the underscored phrase -- the Bible does not say "Thou shall not contract nor solemnize a gay marriage" in explicit terms; therefore, whatever you infer from the Biblical standards for marriage and for sexual morality must therefore be interpretive. It may be a pretty clear inference -- for example, the Golden Calf, not being carved but metal, was certainly not a 'graven image' but was nonetheless the object of idolatry -- but it's still an inference.
the bible doesn't say anything about child rape either. However we know its wrong because of the core moral principles in the bible already set as well as our God given conscience that acts as an internal "Law" in our hearts.
And as a Catholic I believe interpretation has already been layed down by the Church through its dogma. The bible has to be interpreted within teachings and dogma that has come down to us from the apostles and they're successors. I don't believe personal interpretation of the bible holds much weight and hence I use the example of Christendom for the past 2000 years, which has already declared homosexual acts as an intrinsic evil. That is not my interpretation or personal opinion. Even protestants interpret they're bible through they're own similar dogmas. But since the beginning of time the prophets, the apostles, and they're successors have always been clear on what is sinful and what is not. It was only until the 20th century that this new interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin anymore came to light. And that just doesn't hold allot of weight. In fact I don't think it holds any weight. God would not let Christendom err for so long.
But the bottom line to me is that government in the U.S. (and Canada) is not obliged to conform to what you or I or anyone else sees as Biblical standards. (At times, that's a shame; at others, our saving grace.) We guarantee that no one shall have an official, government-issue faith, or doctrines, or behavior system derived from it, forced on them by the power of government, and guarantee that individuals (guided by their family, friends, parents, or whatever, but not by public authority) may choose what they will believe and how to behave in accordance with those beliefs.
Well the argument that DOMA is mainly a faith based law is arguable. There are many other factors that are taken into consideration, like procreation, and the general example of human anatomy and history.
ALL laws have some moral principle behind them. The balancing of the scales of justice. And when you get into the issues of morals you get into the issues of faith.
This is a point that seems to escape most conservative evangelicals -- believing as they do that they have certainty from Scripture as to what God wants of them, they feel that gives them grounds to override the constitutional protections against enforced religiously-motivated behavior -- because it's God's will. Well, remember that most of them came to America to escape Catholicism or Anglicanism or Calvinism or Lutheranism enforced by the kingdom or duchy or whatever under which they were compelled to live in Europe.
Well thats questionable. People came to the New World for exploration and to conquer new land. Its laughable to think the Spanish where trying to escape the Church when they came to the New World considering they were quite zealous in spreading the faith. Same with the Reformers who populated north America.
Let's make this clear: We Christians who support gay marriage follow the Bible. What we don't do is follow your opinion about what the Bible means. It's offensive and arguably contrary to Board rules, so kindly knock it off.
Well again , you cannot truly make that claim 100%. There are some obvious verses in the bible that are gonna pose a problem for the things you support. And to act like they don't exist or are not there is being dishonest and doing a disservice to yourself. Its much better to take the verses for what they are at face value and be honest with what they mean. The apostles knew and well as the early Church fathers. I've seen gay activists try to circle around obvious verses like Romans 1:20-30 and the dishonesty and denial it takes to do such a thing is amazing and they pretty much have to re-define words in themselves to try to even get it similar to what they wanna say. In this we see the true colors of sin and what it does to people. People love sin so much that they will try to re-define what the bible says in order to justify they're favorite sins. This here shows us how deceitful sin and the devil is and that people will goto any length to justify they're sin so they can continue in it without they're conscience bothering them.
But sadly in the end it doesn't work. You cannot force the scales of justice to go the way you want it. If you put a rock on a scale it will go down, not matter how much you try to talk to it to go back up. The gravity of sin cannot be justified by words the same way gravity won't cease to exist by trying to change newtons law. It is what it is
As for the lawsuits, what I've seen is that on the occasions when gay couples sued religious groups of various descriptions, it was because the latter broke contracts previously agreed to because of it being a gay couple. There's a simple solution here: Provide that nobody can be compelled to officiate at, host, or in other ways provide material support for a marriage that goes against their moral standards, on the one hand, and on the other, tell them: get the facts before you sign. If Mike and Pat rent your wedding chapel for their marriage, be sure that Pat is Patricia, not Patrick, if it'll make a difference to you.
well thats nice and all but I don't believe its gonna be that easy. The main problem I have with the gay community is they're threat to religious freedom. The actions of they're community have displayed a general ill-content for our religious freedoms. Take a look at whats happening in CT when 2 gay activist lawmakers tried to pass a bill that would severe the authority of the bishops in the Church. The violence at the St. Paul/Mpls republican convention. The arresting of preachers for "hate-speech" and the censoring of blogs and news articles, the suing of private-buisnesses of people who didn't go against their conscience, the deliberate libel against businesses who voted for Prop 8 and ended up going out of business. These are obvious, manipulative, and sometimes violent attempts on peoples religious freedom
The obligation here was to recognize that the offspring of that marriage would be legitimate heir to the throne. And Henry was convinced that the previous marriage was in fact against canon law -- not his canon law, but what the Catholic Church had spelled out as what constitutes an invalid marriage -- his union, compelled by his father for treaty reasons, to his brother's widow, was in his eyes contrary to what the church law spelled out as legitimate. You know, like your opinion of a gay marriage?
Well the Pope wrote out a dispensation that overruled that. And thus it was valid(also Catherine didn't consummate her last marriage, she was a pure virgin). But that is besides the point. The point is the relevance to people having to act against their consciences under the threat of disciplinary action.
Where does it say that a child has a right to a mother and a father? What are you doing for all those children who have been denied that 'right'? You know, the ones in the foster homes that can't be adopted by gay couples and won't be adopted by 'good Christian families' because they're not babies, they're mixed-race, and so on?
It is the natural God given right to both parents. Considering it would be impossible to create a child without both parents. And even for people who don't believe in God can still agree that nature indeed intends for both parents to nurture they're children.
And I know the long-term effect of being raised by a violent, abusive, 'Bible-believing' father and a mother who is afraid to go against him or who even agrees in the abuse. And a gay couple who sincerely wants to nurture a child and give him or her a happy home, is definitely better for that child.
I agree there are abusive Christians out there who do harm to they're children. These are struggles that parents have to deal with. Most parents want the best for they're children but at times they can do more harm than good under they're zeal. However I don't think this justifies what you are trying to prove. I'm bringing up developmental factors that the child needs from both parents, the maternal and paternal nurturing that the child yearns for and responds to. There are days when the child just wants to confide in his/her mother and there are other days when they just want to confide in their father. A child needs to have both those options while growing up because it has an enormous effect on how the child will be later on in life.
You know, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's too bad that's not Biblical, or even stated by God as the most important thing you can do. Oh, wait..... It Is
Of course, one of the reasons I'm posting this. However justifying sin is not doing good unto others but rather the opposite.
I mean, they've either accepted God or they haven't ...whatever their sexual orientation.
