DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme Court


#1

The Justice Department is set to urge the Supreme Court to uphold a lower-court ruling and block states from banning same-sex marriage, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/doj-set-fight-gay-marriage-bans-supreme-court/story?id=24537941

This is an absolute atrocity! If they succeed in doing this then “gay marriage” will be legalized throughout the United States! We must pray that they do not succeed in doing this. I think we should also contact our legislators and such about this issue. I am not sure if they can do anything about it but it wouldn’t hurt.


#2

Another example of Eric Holder ignoring the existence of the Tenth Amendment.


#3

And if gay marriage is legalized how does it change anything for u, for thecatholicchurch or for hetero marriage?


#4

People will be coerced into supporting it, either by being threatened by their livelihoods or their employers. Children will be worse as well in educational attainment, etc and sadly, they will lack a father most importantly. Marriage becomes an emotional bond rather than being what God intended ~ indissoluble, having shared domestic life to promote the maturity of children, exclusively limited to a male and woman. When this three things get thrown out, there is not reason for marriage to stay as a permanent bond or be limited to just two people because the only things that stick marriage together is social pressures. Kids will be regarded as commodities ~ rather than a child having a right to a mother and father - gay couples will demand to have kids denied their biological mothers/fathers, using anonymous sperm doners and surrogacy (an distortion of the family bloc).


#5

It tells us how little this administration cares about legislation initiated by the vote of the people or their most proximate representatives, for example. If it manages this, then what else that the people want will it seek to destroy?

For the Catholic Church it will first of all be a scandal to the young. Jesus did issue a warning about that. What is marriage if it can be profaned and denigrated in this fashion, and how does one teach the young about its sacredness with the elites of society telling them the exact opposite? To secularists, of course, that wouldn’t matter, but to Catholics it certainly should.

Ultimately, will the Church in the U.S. find itself sued by the government for refusing to perform homosexual marriages against conscience? I realize liberals hoot at that, but the government most certainly did try to claim authority to tell the Lutheran church who its ministers are or are not, and did attempt to force Catholic institutions to provide abortifacients to their employees. That attempt is still going on, and while I don’t think Congress will overturn the Hobby Lobby decision, it won’t be for lack of Democrats trying.


#6

They Church could simply not cooperate with civil marriage anymore (which I would welcome). The priest is only there as a witness for the Church. The marriage is performed by the husband and wife. The rest is just paperwork.


#7

It is nevertheless, a sacrament of the Church if performed as required by the Church.


#8

There are various articles that discuss the shadow of Roe v Wade over the Supreme court and homosexual ‘marriage’ in relation to the court cases last year:

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/gay-marriage-ruling-may-rival-roe-v-wade-in-turmoi/?page=all


#9

The Tenth Amendment doesn’t trump the Ninth or Fourteenth.


#10

Of course it doesn’t. Didn’t say it did. It was however supposed to be a balance of federal authority and one that has been roundly ignored. When I see the Federal Government attacking the states on grounds that the constitution does not delegate to the them, it violates the language of this simple sentence. We have lost our sense of checks and balances, though admittedly, that started by the time we were on our second president.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The President is an adversary of the states that did not vote for him. This is not rhetoric. He is taking the legal adversarial position against states that did not vote for him. It is horrible to see a president in this day with the country so divided leading the charge to make us a house divided.

Mr. President, if you truly wish to unite the country, stop attacking the parts you do not like.


#11

Except that it doesn’t violate the language of that sentence. “Nor prohibited by it to the States.” The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments do prohibit the States from banning same-sex marriage, as every court has found thus far.


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.