Just so that we are all clear with respect to the SCOTUS ruling yesterday: the decision is contrary to reason, contrary to the laws of men throughout history, and contrary to the law of God. Consequently the decision is entirely void and without force, and we are in no way, shape, or form obliged to recognize it as either a “new law” or as a binding interpretation of the Constitution. The decision is morally bankrupt and was a dead letter in the very moment of its promulgation.
This is not to say that we may in any way abuse or maltreat those people who experience same-sex attraction. They are our brothers and sisters.
On a related note, I observe that Henry VIII was excommunicated over a divorce, which is trivial in comparison to the judicial act which took place yesterday. I hope that the appropriate bishops and even the Holy Father are giving due consideration to an appropriate response with respect to the Catholics on SCOTUS who voted in favor of yesterday’s decision. Surely they must be called to repentance with utmost urgency. And the same goes for those in Ireland responsible for the same pseudo-law in that country.
Aquinas, Etc. 
There shouldn’t even be a state marriage license, in my little opinion. Holy Matrimony should be church-sanctioned. Anyone not wanting “Holy Matrimony” as defined by the Church could always make a civil contract or just live together. No laws against living together. It used to be that way in the past. The United States didn’t even grant “marriage licenses” until 1923 with the“Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act” which was passed by the federal government. Always a struggle, though, between the “world” and the Church. Sigh………….
I agree. Marriage should be the domain of the church, and the state should stay out of it entirely.
But that’s not the world we live in. Marriage is a legal institution as well as a religious one, and the legal side of marriage brings with it many benefits. And while I believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are both grievously wrong, the government isn’t responsible for legislating morality. In other words, I don’t think something should be illegal just because it’s wrong.
Consider 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” This verse clearly states that we shouldn’t judge unbelievers for their sin–God will do that. From that, it follows that we shouldn’t expect unbelievers to obey God’s laws. Even if they follow it outwardly, they’ll still displease God in their hearts unless He converts them through us. What, then, could possibly be the point of our secular government forcing non-Christians to follow aspects of Christian morality?
Also, if “because it’s wrong” is your argument for why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal, then to be consistent you’ll also have to argue that divorce should be illegal in all but a few circumstances. Divorce is just as wrong as homosexuality.
I think the only reason that the government should outlaw an act is if the act causes significant harm to someone other than the person performing the act. The law should only prevent actions that harm other people, in other words. A thief should be punished, as he has harmed the person he stole from. A guy who gets pot via entirely peaceful and smokes it in his basement shouldn’t be punished.
Unless someone can provide me with clear evidence that establishing gay marriage as a legal institution causes significant harms to anyone, I see no reason that the government shouldn’t allow it. And I haven’t yet heard a single argument for the detrimental effects of gay marriage that doesn’t fall apart at the seems. So while I don’t like the Supreme Court’s decision, while I don’t think that gay marriage is a good thing at all… I have a very hard time saying that the decision was wrong. In fact, given the principles that this country was founded upon–the principles that basically everyone important in the government has sworn to uphold and defend–I think that the court might actually have made the right decision.
The government isn’t here to make sure no one sins. It could never do that. It’s here to make sure that no one hurts other people. Two homosexuals hurt no one but themselves by getting married; ergo, homosexual marriage shouldn’t be illegal.
Finally, importantly, remember that the government hasn’t established gay marriage as a religious institution. I’m 95% certain that the government isn’t going to start forcing pastors to marry gay couples, especially considering that there are still plenty of pastors out there who refuse to marry biracial couples. Separation of church and state, and all. I’m not saying that laws like that aren’t coming, because they probably are. But this decision won’t force pastors to marry anyone they don’t want to.
Very simply, with ISIS in all 50 states, Obama has signed the death warrants of all samesex marriage partners. The Islamic terrorists in all 50 states are opposed to gays and samesex. Will the gays raise up an Ernst Roehm as Hitler had… or will they make a mass exodus south of the equator? Meanwhile, incremental Sharia Law will be hastened in America to oppose this. Obama thought he was following the New Deal Birth Control agenda – but it will backfire as he has put all American gays in serious danger…
Father Coughlin,
That is a most interesting perspective and an outcome I have never before considered. Thank you for giving me something to ponder.
Fred
Every cloud has a silver lining….
Hello again Met,
I had a feeling that it was a mistake to omit explicitly saying that SCOTUS’s decision was also contrary to natural law. :-) Perhaps that would have helped in the present case; I don’t know. In any event, technically it is covered by the appeal to reason, which SCOTUS completely ignored. But I am starting to blather. Pardon me.
You wrote:
But that is just what laws are: murder is illegal because it is morally wrong. Rape is illegal because it is morally wrong. Stealing is illegal because it is morally wrong. It is never a question of whether or not a law legislates morality; it is always a question of what morality is the basis for a given law. And the fact that every civilization has laws dealing with these crimes supports my thesis, I think. Perhaps equally relevant in this case is that the essentially universal criminality of these acts shows that there is a social component to them. You say in the present instance that a consensual homosexual act is victimless and therefore beyond the purview of legislation; I think that one can only hold that perspective on libertarian grounds. But natural law is not libertarian. We have the capacity to reproduce for a reason: to perpetuate the species. Those who engage in sexual activity which is intrinsically contrary to the perpetuation of the human race are thereby engaging in activity which has social consequences (to wit: the diminution of the human race). No man is an island. :-)
Somewhat more remotely, the advocates of same-sex “unions” are not and will not be satisfied with the mere freedom to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage (if any). No. They will be satisfied with nothing less than the active approval of all of us for their behavior and relationships. See the experience of Canada, where these so-called unions have enjoyed the force of legality for a decade. It is not a pretty picture there for those who dare to say that this activity is immoral. It will not be a pretty picture here. You may have heard about the Pennsylvania paper which immediately banned op-ed pieces which opposed this new “institution” (a ban which they were forced by social pressure to rescind). Their sole mistake with the new rule was to institute it too soon. If they had waited a while, the law would have caught up with their zeal. Dissent will not be an option. I’ll bet you a dollar on that. :-)
You also wrote:
Whether that is true or not depends upon who decides what sin is and who decides what government’s role is. Would you not agree that the Left routinely holds that the government knows better than the people how their money should be spent and how their lives should be ordered? You and I may (and probably do) agree that on any kind of rational or Scriptural basis it is ridiculous to suppose that governments would or could or should try to prevent literally all evildoing. But see 1984 and Minority Report for just two entirely credible examples of this very thing. See the experiences of just about every surveillance society of the 20th century.
You wrote:
That remains to be seen; the Court in its decision said no such thing was intended, but whether that view will survive is an open question. In any case, I do not think this is really the most serious consequence related to religious freedom that has been raised by the decision. The most serious consequence is that individuals will have no religious freedom with respect to these “unions.” Landlords (for one obvious example) lose their say (if they haven’t already) as to whether they will rent to such couples even if they have religious scruples against doing so. In short: religious freedom is being reduced to what goes on within the four walls of a church building. But that is not what the Founders intended by the First Amendment. My rights to free belief and free speech categorically permit me to stand on the corner of any street in America and talk about them. That right is going away. Again, I’ll bet you another dollar on that. :-)
Someone has already said that with The Decision SCOTUS has made dissent the worst form of bigotry. We are going to see that the person who said that was speaking prophetically.
Peace (really),
Fred