Supreme Court Arguments – What I heard

28 Apr

I listened today to all of the arguments on both questions before the Supreme Court. You can and should listen to them – either streaming or as a download you can put on your media device. To be honest in Question 1 there is a rather exciting part with a very zealous man who informs the court in a high warble and very energetically that they will all go to hell if they rule for same sex marriage.

Arguments for Question #1:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

Arguments for Question #2:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2

Now – here is the fun part. Question #1 is to determine if there is a constitutional right to Gay Marriage. It is a lively debate, where one of the defenders of marriage (from Michigan) did a horrible job IMHO. He danced around issues, was unclear, and took off on tangents. His circular arguments consistently seemed to make the case for Gay Marriage, whether it was his intention or not. In the end I found myself asking what the people who selected the lawyers were thinking! The Justices seemed to have a better grasp on the issues than he did and had to use leading questions to draw him to the correct argument — or away from a quagmire of an argument.

Now- Here is the Scary part. The justices under Question #1 clearly laid out the case that if they ruled that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, then it would have wide ranging ramifications. Those ramifications would include all clergy performing marriage would be required to marry gay people regardless of their religious beliefs in order to protect the civil rights of Gay people. The idea of exceptions for religious reasons while interesting would only institutionalize the very discrimination and marginalization that Gay Marriage proponents have made the basis of their case. The justices pointed out that it would leave priests who refused subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the new civil right of Gay People to marry.

Maybe Cardinal George was more correct than we knew when he said that his successor would die in prison, his successor would be martyred in the public square, and his successor would pick up the shattered pieces of society and begin rebuilding as the Catholic Church has done for 2000 years.

Question #2 is not a fun part – it deals with the aftermath should the court rule that there is not right to gay marriage and thereby nullify all the gay marriages performed. IMHO this is a conundrum of the courts own making by refusing to hear the case earlier, or issue stays to stop gay marriages from occurring until the issue could be resolved. I think the group defending marriage missed the key point, which I felt was that if one state redefines marriage unilaterally – should all states be forced to accept their redefinition? What if a state allowed people to marry horses? Would all states have to recognize that marriage? The bias of the liberal judges like Sotomayor and Ginsberg is clear in their questioning. In truth I would have to admit that the same is true of Alito and Scalia whose bias is also evident from their line of questioning. The swing judges were hard to read and as usual Clarence Thomas said nothing.

In conclusion – Pray for America, The Court, and the Church. Based on what I heard today my only hope for marriage or religious freedom is now in prayer. In the event we loose at the supreme court the first and foremost political action should be to get our states out of the marriage business. Set it back to the Churches who have governed it since long before the federal court “invented” civil marriage. Our priests will be forced to follow in the footsteps of the orthodox church in Chicago that simply no longer performs civil marriages – only sacramental ones.

Pax Christi,

Colin

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Supreme Court Arguments – What I heard”

  1. Marc April 28, 2015 at 9:56 pm #

    I honestly do not see Cardinal George’s successor willing to go to prison for anyone. Maybe his successor

    Liked by 1 person

    • Colin Corcoran April 28, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

      Unfortunately – I see your point about his current successor…

      Like

      • Marc April 28, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

        Yep
        He has already indicated and demonstrated that he’ll distribute Communion to apparently anyone. Perhaps Card. George assumed that Card Burke would be his successor. Then l would seriously take his prediction.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Jared April 29, 2015 at 2:27 am #

    That was a chilling statement in the first question. Did they specify that it would apply to priests who marry only those in their religion? Could additional canonical problems justify it to the law? (ie. “It’s not that they’re both women; it’s that they’re modernist heretics who reject Church teaching and we only witness the marriage of practicing Catholics. I tried for six months to correct their theology, but they just wouldn’t listen…”)

    Or maybe I’m too hopeful and it’s time for priest holes, underground seminaries, and Bl. Miguel Pro training.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Colin Corcoran April 29, 2015 at 1:19 pm #

      The argument was made that clearly neither all Christians, nor all Catholics believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Ginsburg and Sotomayor had him on the ropes because of this. Therefore the religious objection cannot be insurmountable – or antithetical to the Christian faith. So many Christian faiths have accepted Gay Marriage publicly. Other faiths however universally reject Gay Marriage like Islam, and their rights must also be respected. In the end they tried to paint religious doctrine as bigotry under the guise of religion. It was MADE CLEAR that if they ENSHRINED A RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE BY RULING FOR IT, then YES it would apply to churches and clergy and refusal to comply would lead to civil rights lawsuits, and loss of tax exempt status. This was dismissed by the Gay Rights lawyer who insisted that exceptions would be made for religious views – but the justice asking teh question seemed to think there was a contradiction by enshrining a right in the constitution to gay marriage, when gender identity nor same sex attraction are constitutionally protected, that nullifies a first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. My favorite quote was “Who are we to change the universal definition of marriage that has been a constant across faiths and society across the millennia that it is between a man and woman.”

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: