It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Only one problem.

Hetero-marriage was never a right protected by the US Constitution.

But as of today gay-marriage is protected by the constitution. While hetero-marriage is still not a right protected by the US Constitution.

So where is the equality in that?

There is none.

A few get a rights status while the rest do not.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

"They're gonna take away our Hetro-mariages!"

Oh behave.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

The point is special rights for gays opposed to no marriage rights protections for hetero's.

I thought this was all about equal rights but it is not after all.

We must remember marriage was never a right protected by the US Constitution.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

But it isn't gay marriage it is all just marriage now for everyone.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It seems giving churches a tax-exempt status has already created a law respecting religion. So by taking their tax-exempt status away, it would simply be enforcing the "no law respecting religion".

Seems reasonable and prudent and in the spirit of the document to me. It's not creating a law, it simply removing some laws or tax codes.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Oh this is rich. A church with a penchant for enabling pedos & their fondness for diddling little boys...has an objection to the SCOTUS ruling. What a bunch of unapologetic hypocrites. I guess it's only acceptable to stick the sausage in the brownie factory if it's under god's roof with unwilling kids?

And for the last time, will the idiots claiming it's gonna be forced church marriages as far as they eye can see STHU? If ANY church can tell me "Get LOST, atheist, we're not marrying your kind!" then the exact same is to be expected of churches who don't want to marry gays. God, will you people think for once?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Heterosexuals have ALWAYS been able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Now homosexuals can too. Equal.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The church is free to do so and can enact edicts to never obey the court ruling.

They is a church.

The day that they have to obey government edicts is the day we all should worry, because marriage would be the least of our concerns.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Badgered1

Ummm...

Hate to break this to you, but the Catholic church is very relevant. A bit blind to think otherwise.

That they're wrong is beside the point.

Being non-Catholic, I don't care. But there are many who will.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Your'e missing the point

It is not nor ever was a protected constitutional right.

So why should one group have a special protection that no one else ever had?

If it was just about ability that is different than a right. But now one small group has a protection that the rest don't have.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Get a grip.

Do you honestly believe that "hetero-marriage" is going to be outlawed? Seriously?

This is all about civil rights. That's all its ever been about.

Now it's just marriage. No distinction, which is how it should bloody well have been long, long ago.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

It seems giving churches a tax-exempt status has already created a law respecting religion. So by taking their tax-exempt status away, it would simply be enforcing the "no law respecting religion".

Seems reasonable and prudent and in the spirit of the document to me. It's not creating a law, it simply removing some laws or tax codes.


And by taking that exemption away, they are then subject to whole other set of laws, something they are supposed to be free of because once they are subject to the tax code, they can be punished by it just like every other institution that Federal Government decides it doesn't like or needs to "bring into line." Seen Obamacare lately?

Don't like the doctrine of church A ... TAX!

Do like the doctrine of church B ... TAX BREAK!

Just like they do now with every single business and other institution out there. Not to mention all the separation of church and state issues.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Oh, no, hetero marriage won't be outlawed. Freedom of religion could be.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I am not talking about anything being outlawed. Quit reading something into this that was never said.

This is about rights that are protected against that others don't have.
edit on 26-6-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: seagull

Oh, no, hetero marriage won't be outlawed. Freedom of religion could be.



This is what my wife is saying.

I don't think the concern is valid though.

We'd be destroying the very foundation of our country by eradiating the 1st.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, no it won't be.

Something so central to what we are as a nation? No.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You're right. You have my apologies.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
To be honest, Christian, Islamic and Jewish resistance to the new ruling is to be expected. Whoever wrote the Bible / Qu'ran made sure that their view on homosexuality would stick across the ages.

I would hope that the gay community has enough respect and enlightenment among them to respect the traditions and beliefs of the diehards and adopt a 'live and let live' attitude now.

This ruling gives gay people the chance to create their own marriage customs away from those of traditional religion.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I think what it really comes down to -- this whole anti-gay marriage argument -- is about control and power.

The religious people for the longest time have had power and control over the government. They "owned" the word marriage. They believed they had the moral authority to infiltrate a secular government and make/pass legislation that aligned with their very specific religious beliefs.

Now, people are waking up and taking the government away from the religious. The religious people are having to accept the truth that there was always supposed to be a separation of church & state. The US Gov. was never meant to be a "Christian" institution. It was envisioned to be impartial to various religious entities that existed inside it's borders.

To the religious, this stings. It hurts. It means giving up a monopoly on something they believed was their God-given, inherited right. It means retreating back into the rooms of their churches and no longer preaching from the halls of the Senate.

No one likes to give something away that they are used to "owning". No one likes having to retreat back to a smaller position of power. No one likes having their influence cut.

Fear is why we are seeing such nonsensical, terror-mongering attitudes from the religious right. These people are scared. These people are terrified. These folks perceive their world as crumbling and their spheres of influence shrinking.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The irony is now no one can oppose gay-marriage because it is a protected right.

But hetero-marriage can be opposed by anyone and everyone because their marriages are not protected by the constitution.

I thought it was an issue of equal rights but the outcome makes it clear it is not equal.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join