Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Christian Leaders Claim Supreme Court 'Has No Authority to Redefine Marriage'

Posted by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM
  • 443 Replies

Christian Leaders Claim Supreme Court 'Has No Authority to Redefine Marriage'

article image

Many well-known Christians have signed the "Marriage Solidarity Statement," which claims the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the right to redefine marriage.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court did redefine marriage in 1967, Loving v. Virginia, when it legalized interracial marriage.

The conservative signers of the defiant document include Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Franklin Graham and Dr. Ben Carson.

The statement says in part:

If the Supreme Court becomes the tool by which marriage is redefined in the positive law of this nation, the precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage. Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to same-sex couples by legislative or judicial fiat also sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. It undermines their fundamental rights and threatens their security, stability and future.

Finally, the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.

As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve.

The Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver, who helped write the statement, told OneNewsNow.com: "We say unequivocally that if the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or set the foundation to redefine marriage, that decision would be an illegitimate decision. If the Supreme Court or any other civil institution seeks to redefine marriage into something it cannot be, this is a line that we cannot and will not cross. And we may be facing a clash of unprecedented proportions, but we cannot idly stand by."

Source: OneNewsNow.com, LC.org, Wikipedia.org


by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
rfurlongg
by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:01 AM
7 moms liked this
**eye roll**
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM
9 moms liked this

 IMHO, the 1967 ruling did not redefine marriage as it was still between one man and one woman.

I think all of this could be solved if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether.

 

IhartU
by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM
18 moms liked this

So, the Christians have the sole right to define what marriage is? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

nuclear_sugar
by Jaye on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM
1 mom liked this
Those dinosaurs need to get their panties untwisted and step out into the sunlight of this century. Sigh.
SuperChicken
by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM
10 moms liked this

They clearly think so.  But it's not even surprising anymore when Christians think the rest of the world should live by their beliefs.  


Quoting IhartU:

So, the Christians have the sole right to define what marriage is? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...


 

IhartU
by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM
11 moms liked this


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 IMHO, the 1967 ruling did not redefine marriage as it was still between one man and one woman.

I think all of this could be solved if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether.

 

How would they do that? Government and Law go hand and hand.

How about religions get out of the marriage business altogether instead? After all, they didn't invent it, don't own it and have no right to tell anyone they can't marry.

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM
1 mom liked this
So? Thos isn't a theocracy. RFLMQJTO
Luvnlogic
by Silver Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM
3 moms liked this
I'd be totally fine with legal and religious marriage being two separate things. Call each what you will. Then we can move past the terminology, any two consenting adults can share their lives with all the benefits and responsibilities inherent, and each church can choose (per their doctrine) which unions they will bless/recognize.
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:23 AM
2 moms liked this
This is how it is already. The government can't tell a church what is marriage. They are talking about a legal state.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

I'd be totally fine with legal and religious marriage being two separate things. Call each what you will. Then we can move past the terminology, any two consenting adults can share their lives with all the benefits and responsibilities inherent, and each church can choose (per their doctrine) which unions they will bless/recognize.
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:24 AM
This is how it is already. The government can't tell a church what is marriage. They are talking about a legal state.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

I'd be totally fine with legal and religious marriage being two separate things. Call each what you will. Then we can move past the terminology, any two consenting adults can share their lives with all the benefits and responsibilities inherent, and each church can choose (per their doctrine) which unions they will bless/recognize.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)