Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jun 27th 2013 new
It's only the beginning folks. What's down the road certainly doesn't look pretty.
Jun 27th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: The USSC made no such ruling. One case was decided on an issue of standing, i.e., the people who appealed the District court and then the Appellate court had no authority to do so. This is not a defeat on the merits of the case; it is only a defeat on technicalities. The other case was decided on the grounds that the Federal Government has no authority over marriage. This ruling means that the Federal Government cannot pick and choose which marriages it recognizes. If the state in which the couple resides recognizes the marriage as legal, the Federal Government is required to recognize it.

The latter case does not address whether one state has to recognize gay "marriages" performed in another; that issue was not raised and was not decided. Neither case requires states in general to recognize gay "marriage"; that issue was not decided here.

The failure of the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the first case does not mean it believes the District Court made the right decision; it means the Supreme Court has determined the petitioner does not have the authority to bring suit/appeal.

Also note that dissenting opinions tend to exaggerate issues.
The effect of the Defense of Marriage act which was ruled unconstitutional was to negate the Constitutions requirement in Article IV Section 1 which requires each state to recognize the validity of the acts of any other state.but that Congress had the power to prescribe the manner in which the state's would do so.

By declaring the DOMA Unconstitutional, every state, even those that currently prohibit gay marriage, must now recognize as valid a gay marriage entered into any state that does allow it.

In other words, for example, Washington State recognizes gay marriage. So a gay couple who enters into marriage in Washington State and then later move to a state that does not, must still be recognized as a valid marriage by the state to which they moved.

For all intents and purposes, therefore, gay marriage is now a legal reality in all 50 states and no state can continue to disallow it as they will be sued for discrimination and lose every time. So within a very short time, every state legislature will be passing laws recognizing the idiocy of gay marriage.

The consequences will be far reaching as this has now set the stage for all kinds of lawsuits by perverts of every stripe, not just gays, to sue for denial of their rights. And their chances of success must be considered high, because the reasoning used by the Court majority in this case would be valid for every other moronic claim of rights.

Even before this ruling, the transgender wackos had started their campaign for their rights. Nambla has been doing so for years..Polygamy groups are also shifting into high gear to come out of the alleys they reside in secretly to push for their rights. In the last several years their have been TV programs on cable channels which presented a very sympathetic look at that life style.

As all the perverts enter the judicial system with their demands for their right, the Courts own reasoning will be used; so the court will be hard pressed to rule against them.

Oh yes, Justice Kennedy, the deciding vote in the case, is another one of our cafeteria Catholics who knows better than the Church what its teachings should be.
Jun 27th 2013 new
DOMA has two sections: section 2 and section 3. Technically 3, but section 1 is trivial.

Here is the text of the bill; it is less than 1 page.
thomas.loc.gov
Section 2 concerns how states treat gay marriages recognized by other states.
Section 3 concerns how the federal government treats gay marriages recognized by a particular state.

Only section 3 was challenged and only section 3 was ruled unconstitutional. The first paragraph of Section I of the opinion of the court (signed by a majority of justices) states that section 2 was not under review. Buried in the final paragraph on page 18 of the opinion is a statement that different states may have different rules on marriage ( the example in the second to last paragraph is what degree of cousins can marry). The second to last paragraph (the last is a single sentence) also states the decision is limited to marriages recognized as valid by the state in which the couple reside. It implicitly does not answer the question of whether Virginia has to recognize the marriage. Chief Robert's dissent makes the point that the question of whether States have to recognize other States' gay marriages or have to permit the marriages themselves was NOT decided in this case.

When a court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not they can rule that only certain parts of it are unconstitutional. This is a common tactic. A recent example is the Obamacare decision. The Supreme Court ruled that certain parts of the Medicaid Expansion were unconstitutional even though the mandate was held as constitutional.

You can find a copy of the decision here: www.supremecourt.gov



Jun 27th 2013 new
If my local library had such activities, I'd be tempted to ask them when the heterosexual pride activities will take place. I'd do that with a 'strait' face too!
Jun 27th 2013 new
(quote) Peter-449116 said: If my local library had such activities, I'd be tempted to ask them when the heterosexual pride activities will take place. I'd do that with a 'strait' face too!
You could ask your local parish to start a Chastity Pride parade.
Jun 28th 2013 new
(quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: Please note, that I live in CA. I was born and raised here; this is my home state. San Diego was a wonderful place to be raised, but this has gone way over the top. It feels that my homeland, where my schoolmates once wrote in "God Bless, from XXXXXXX," in my school annuals, is going, going, gone. In its place is a state of unreality: a legal fairy tale. The definition of "marriage" has become so diluted that it is barely recognizable as what it truly was designed to be, a sacrament, under which a couple, male and female, received the grace of God, and state legal protection of an association deemed, "a family." This protection was granted for the protection of the couple to bear children, or in most cases, be willing and able to do so. Our entire culture is based on the bedrock of this sacrament, not anything else. This technically legal definition of "marriage," excludes the big picture regarding what "marriage" is really all about. The legal and the religious definitions have diverged into something that is mutually exclusive. There is no solution except to disregard the legal definition of "marriage," in states that now allow two same-sexed persons to join legally as a married couple. This is such a diluted definition of "marriage,' that is might as well be any two persons who care to be joined legally as a family. Soon we will be forced against our will, to acknowledge these so-called, "marriages." Teachers in public schools will be required to acknowledge so-called "parents," of these same-sex marriages. As if it isn't already confusing enough with parents and children with different surnames, due to divorce, remarriage, married women keeping their surnames. Now there would be the added dimension of having to refer to a same-sex couple as, "parents" Really, I feel so sorry for children who, having no choice in the matter, are adopted into these types of arrangements. How are we to refer to these people, "Mr. & Mr.," or "Mrs. & Mrs." Certainly they cannot be so arrogant to assume that heterosexual persons will refer to them as husband and wife!
Jackie: It sounds so sad reading your post. And it feels sad going through
what we have all just been through. Almost like Armageddon.

Unfortunately, on the radio today I heard them saying that polygamy is not
far behind now. There are 4 states that allow polygamy already.

I still think they should not have called it marriage unless it was between a
man and a woman. They should have had another name--but the gays did
not seem to accept calling it "civil union." Too bad for the rest of us.
Jun 28th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Today we have a minority within a minority celebrating over the modern idiocy of "gay marriage" because the Supremes have now decreed that we must all celebrate perversion.

Isn't it great that 1984 has finally arrived, 29 years late. By decreee, the vast majority of Americans have now been relegated to, not just a minority status, but we are now the perverts
I don't believe that the majority of states that have banned homosexuals getting married will be forced to allow it in their states. South Carolina where I live would probably vote to separate from the Union rather than allow homosexuals to get married; here it is like denying that there is a God.
So only the Americans that live in states like New York or Maryland are perverts....
Jun 28th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: DOMA has two sections: section 2 and section 3. Technically 3, but section 1 is trivial.

Here is the text of the bill; it is less than 1 page.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:
Section 2 concerns how states treat gay marriages recognized by other states.
Section 3 concerns how the federal government treats gay marriages recognized by a particular state.

Only section 3 was challenged and only section 3 was ruled unconstitutional. The first paragraph of Section I of the opinion of the court (signed by a majority of justices) states that section 2 was not under review. Buried in the final paragraph on page 18 of the opinion is a statement that different states may have different rules on marriage ( the example in the second to last paragraph is what degree of cousins can marry). The second to last paragraph (the last is a single sentence) also states the decision is limited to marriages recognized as valid by the state in which the couple reside. It implicitly does not answer the question of whether Virginia has to recognize the marriage. Chief Robert's dissent makes the point that the question of whether States have to recognize other States' gay marriages or have to permit the marriages themselves was NOT decided in this case.

When a court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not they can rule that only certain parts of it are unconstitutional. This is a common tactic. A recent example is the Obamacare decision. The Supreme Court ruled that certain parts of the Medicaid Expansion were unconstitutional even though the mandate was held as constitutional.

You can find a copy of the decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf



Alex.. i like the way you write.. very clear and concise. <2thumbs up> smile Praying
Jun 28th 2013 new
(quote) Marianne-100218 said: Unfortunately, on the radio today I heard them saying that polygamy is not
far behind now. There are 4 states that allow polygamy already.

I still think they should not have called it marriage unless it was between a
man and a woman. They should have had another name--but the gays did
not seem to accept calling it "civil union." Too bad for the rest of us.
Ah Marianne, polygamy is going to be a (minor) next concern, for when we choose, as individuals and as a voting group to allow behavior and laws that are anti-scriptural, then there can be NO boundaries. For if we allow same sex marriage, then we have to allow polygamy. Why shouldn't those who have multiple partner attraction not get the same rights as same sex attraction? I'm not trying to be silly or ridiculous, I just need to point out that once we break away from God's design for us, we need to be aware that anything and everything must be allowed.

So beyond polygamy, what is the next "I was born this way, and you are discriminating against me" group?

Pedophiles. shocked NO WAY, you might think and say. THIS will never happen.

Think again. The pro-pedophilia movement is ALREADY well on it's way. Read this from All American Blogger:

(The author wrote) In 2007, I wrote an exhaustive history of the pro-pedophilia movement. In conclusion, I wrote:

The current movement to legalize and normalize pedophilia may seem unrealistic to some. I have yet to have someone agree with me when I claim that it will be legal in the next 25-30 years. But there are many, as I have detailed here, who see pedophiles as an oppressed minority. They see the road to freedom as being the same road homosexuals marched down. The first step would be the removal of pedophilia as a mental illness, a move the APA has already considered. Then, using the research of Kinsey and others mentioned above, the move would be made to abolish the age of consent. With the seeming support of science, this could be possible and it would effectively legalize pedophilia. With the legal burden lifted, the effort would then shift to normalization and acceptance. This is done by pedophiles casting themselves as a minority, a victim of a culture that rejects them. March after march makes the sight of a fifty year old man giving a six year old boy a deep tongue kiss nothing more than a sign of Americas tolerance, regardless of who gets hurt.

(The author then added) Sometimes, I hate it when Im right:


If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Associations bible of mental illnesses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.
The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.


allamericanblogger.com


So...the term "pedophiles" is being changed into "minor-attracted persons" and there is work being done so that "the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance"


This isn't a science fiction story folks. This is the next step in who America is going to be.





Jun 28th 2013 new
(quote) Jessica-951024 said:

God is the ultimate Author of life, and He is the ultimate Authority. That gives me hope. He has defined marriage to be between one man and one woman, and so it will always be.
How so very true Jessica!

We have to keep in mind Matthew 16:18. So often we remember the first part:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,



But we also have to keep in mind the second part of that verse, because "the end" is already written. God wins!!!

and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.


Our purpose is to make sure WE are on the right side of the playing field when the end-timer buzzes....and, we also need to be out there in the world trying to get as many others on God's side as possible, so when their end-timer buzzer buzzes, they are on the right side of the playing field. THAT is part of our purpose here on earth.

We need to keep our faith. Pray. Keep ourselves on God's path. And take action, to help others to see the light. For the gate into heaven is narrow.

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Posts 11 - 20 of 45