Posted on 06/26/2015 9:42:54 AM PDT by C19fan
On this slender thread does the promise of religious liberty hang. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Obergefell that declares same-sex marriage a constitutional right, barely mentions the means by which most Americans conduct their weddings — houses of worship. Only on page 27 does Kennedy get around to addressing the connection between church and state, and the assurances in this paragraph are less than compelling, to say the least:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Please delete. Duplicate
If you like your religion.....
If you needed man to tell you your religion was okay, was your religion really okay?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/23/refusing-to-marry-same-sex-couples-isn-t-religious-freedom-it-s-just-discrimination.html
“If you like your religion.....”
Funny, but somehow creepy in an early 1930’s Germany sort of way.
Time to push the reset button and start over. We really haven’t had a constitution that has been followed as law since at least FDR. And this just finishes completely.
Constitution convention. Call the states together, let’s get started.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
....
If you approach the Constitution as a non-religious instrument, the Court had no logical choice but to endorse gay marriage just as they will have no choice but to endorse polygamy when that legal challenge is put before them (if you want to see some REAL logic-twisting, watch the logic of the gay marriage ruling get stood on its head when the subject becomes polygamy).
But churches are a different story and they have a different set of rules to adhere to - God’s rules. I would not be upset if a gay wedding took place at a local courthouse but I would be extremely upset at a gay wedding in a church and consider that church apostate and worthy of damnation.
I’m waiting for some gays to claim they have a Constitutional right to have a big church wedding like their mothers had. I would hope my church would draw a line in the sand say “No way will our house of worship become a house of desecration.”
Well, some good might come out of this. I can see it now:
The Christian-Muslim Alliance Exploratory Committee”
They do say that politics makes for strange bedfellows.
So to speak.
Can someone clarify whether the issuance of a state marriage license is sufficient to be married, or must there also be some sort of ceremony before a civil or religious official? If the ceremony is required, states might deny churches the right to perform ANY marriages unless they agree to perform gay marriages. I know that is what many progressive would want.
States should end marriages in favor of purely civil unions. Let churches do marriages. The gays get their civil union from the government and churches do sacramental marriage by their own standards
Our oldest daughter and her fiance decided to get married at the local courthouse and then several months later, they had a religious wedding ceremony led by our pastor at a friend’s farm. During the ceremony, they washed each other’s feet as an acknowledgment of their devotion.
When marriages can be performed by a justice of the peace at a courthouse, there should be absolutely no pressure on any church, temple or synagogue to perform any type of ceremony (or event) for anyone who happens to knock on their door with a demand for anything.
Sounds a lot like, “If you like your religion, you can keep it.”
You can worship at your church after it is sued out of existence.
Pray America is waking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.