Posted on 04/27/2015 7:51:31 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments this week on same-sex marriage, a case expected to be divisive across the nation. Even those who oppose same-sex marriage disagree on how to argue the case against it.
As the Supreme Court hears Obergefell v. Hodges this week, attention turns to the oral arguments for and against the state laws defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. The court also can consider the scores of arguments offered in legal briefs filed by “friends of the court.”
Many of the arguments are from religious groups with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. More than a dozen briefs have been filed by religious conservatives concerned with defending traditional family structures.
The briefs reveal deep divisions about basic foundations in the larger case against same-sex marriage. The religious groups are divided, for example, on whether the argument against same-sex marriage is religious.
A number of those who filed briefs think it is important that the case be made in strictly secular terms. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, says its argument is based on the facts of nature, not theology.
“It is a mistake to characterize laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as somehow embodying a purely religious viewpoint over against a purely secular one,” the bishops say in their legal brief. “Rather, it is a common sense reflection of the fact that (homosexual) relationships do not result in the birth of children, or establish households where a child will be raised by its birth mother and father.”
The case before the Supreme Court could hinge on whether state laws defining marriage as heterosexual are motivated by animus.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
IMO, government being involved in marriage at all is the problem. Including codifying marriage in the tax code. If marriage were strictly a religious ceremony and practice, the secular progressives and the gaystapo wouldn’t get within hundred miles of it.
If decent people lose this one, it’s time for government to stop recognizing marriage. If it’s not real marriage, then pretending that it matters is a mistake. Anyone who wants can go have a party and call themselves “married” once it’s no longer a government issue. Then churches that follow the Bible (synagogues that follow the Torah) can have real marriage ceremonies, and everyone else can have whatever kind of party they want.
PFL
This article is utter bullsh&t designed to make it look like religious amici briefs are not on the same page. The whole idea of friend of the court briefs is to add something that the other parties have not. Meaning if all the amicus briefs said the same thing, the court would get annoyed...They are supposed to be different. Totally disingenuous on the part of the Post.
And that's just the Justices.
I am reading the Catholic bishops’ brief and there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it.
Why? Islam is a religion, so is Mormonism and gay churches, and Satanic churches and religions not even created yet.
“Real marriage” ended with the popularization and ready practice of divorce. How can “marriage” be “real” while be entered into 2,3,4,5 or how ever many times? How can a sacrament be scooped up in a drive-thru window, after midnight, in Las Vegas?
How do you tell people that marriage no longer exists in America as a legal union?
Are you going to tell the military, including our Special Ops people that they are no longer married by law, so any personal relationships in their life they have to handle on their own, no bringing them into the bosom of the military world for protection and on base housing? Even when stationed overseas?
Do you think that Manhattan and Dallas is ready to learn that marriage is now a personal thing, with no laws governing it or defining if their marriage is legally binding or not?
Why waste time talking about things that are not going to happen? Why does a political problem so quickly spin off into fantasy and “imagine if”?
Since we know that five out of nine justices on the Supreme Court are in favor of homosexual marriage, this is all just a kangaroo court proceeding.
There will be no weighing of factors, weighing of evidence, consideration of rights under the constitution, or legal consideration of how states define marriage within their borders.
The court will pass down an opinion that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and will sweep away marriage laws in all 50 states.
The only issue to consider is if it will be a 5-4 decision. John Roberts may vote with the liberals to make it 6-3, or a stronger majority. As this case has come to be seen as a major homosexual civil rights case, and because homosexual civil rights are said to be the civil rights issue of the 21st century and all that, some think Roberts may be thinking of his place in history on this historic case.
Government will get out of marriage, when it can get out of divorce and all other family law issues.
Divorce was legal in Jesus’s day. Yet he still affirmed marriage. No amount of disrespect of marriage will make it any less real.
Divorce is not new, even Thomas Jefferson dealt in divorce law.
I surely pray that somebody argues on behalf of the culture. Homo marriage strikes at the heart of the only thing that holds a country together. The family unit is the first unit of law in a culture. Without the family the cohesion is broken and the nation falls apart. It’s already happening.
I agree, and it is a fight that we need to make and to win in the political arena, and by educating people that voting is a part of their expression of faith, in other words overcome this idea that you can be a Catholic/or any denomination or religion, and vote democrat.
I don’t like the attempts to escape into pretend discussions about ending legal marriage for everyone, and so on.
Simple. This is a States’ Rights issue. Any supposed clause/statement in the 14th is imagined. We all know the purpose of the 14th, and it wasn’t to allow mentally ill people to change thousands of years of tradition.
Does anyone think that America will have 40 states, the United States Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force, millions of federal employees, the immigration laws, and a foreign policy, and Corporate America, all having the same definition of marriage, and those families and marriages forever not being recognized in 10 states as they travel, move, and get relocated, and sent from base to base, from corporate to corporate, from managing one restaurant in one state to running another in a different state?
How long do you think that wall will last?
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.