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   + Show Post

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
Replies (21-30):
lizmarie1975
by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM
1 mom liked this


If the church is so unhappy with the word marriage being used to define a union between a same sex couple, why doesn't the church start using different terminology? I am married to my husband sans religion. I am as married as my brother who got his license from the government and then had a ceremony performed in a church.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

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.



yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting IhartU:


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting IhartU:


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.

 Thinking outside the box helps. 

You are not going to get the truly religious to endorse sin.  It just isn't going to happen.  Marriage is a holy sacrament and has been for centuries.  You don't just tell people to stuff their traditions.

You can however find a solution for everyone.

I don't know a singe very religious person that objects to rights that are being sought.  Those seeking rights should not object to a religous persons belief that marrage is holy.

The only thing preventing a reasonable solution is the government.  You might want to ask yourself why.  But, that is a whole other discussion.

The military is going to start allowing some benefits for those that have signed a Declaration of Partnership.  Why not extend this to all partnerships?  Everyone goes down to the courhouse, clerk...wherever and gets this legal paperwork.  What they do next in terms of a ceremony or celebration is on them and whoever will perform it for them.  Ta da...solution for everyone.  Well, everyone except those that are more interested in legislated acceptance than they are of rights.

 

 Are you saying those who want a government marriage witjhout religion should be allowed to and those who want a religious marriage should be allowed to- without the goverment paperwork? I'm not sure...

 The fact is that no matter how much religious people think they own marriage, they don't. It's a contract and because the government has laws surrounding that contract when it comes to things like benefits and divorce and so on, there HAS to be an official, non-religious documentation of every marriage. There cannot BE just a religious ceremony.

 If they view gay marriage as a sin, that is there problem. We're not a theocracy and their personal religious views should have NO bearing on what other American citizens do. Why does it bother them so much that marriage is re-defined? Does it take away from their marriage? If so, then they have problems.



 I know you have issues with religious people...you have got to remove that from your thought long enought to wrap your mind around what I am saying.  Your answer is telling religious people to stuff it.  Is that really what you want, or do you want everyone to have the same legal rights?

A declaration of partnership would legally bind 2 people together.  There would be NOTHING else required by the government.  Anything else would merely be frosting..a celebration for some...a religious sacrament for others.

It is actually quite simple.

 

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM
1 mom liked this

 Interesting to see some of you more interested in telling the relgious to stuff it than rights for everyone.

 

Luvnlogic
by Silver Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Ok...well, the church doesn't seem to know that. :) I'm all for marriage equality and I don't mind calling my marriage something other than "marriage" if it would take the fight out of this issue so we could all be truly equal.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)



Quoting stacymomof2:

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.

Marriage is the legal contract we make with the government when we get married.

Holy matrimony is what religious institutions confer to couples who comply with their religious requirements for marriage.

We already have two terms.

Luvnlogic
by Silver Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM
There's no reason why they can't, I just don't think they will. But if we keep approaching it from this standpoint, it's less likely to happen at all. It's a practicality thing I'm discussing. Yes, we should all get to call our unions whatever the hell we want. I guess I'm taking the approach of baby stepping those folks into it as opposed to flipping them all on their heads.

Quoting lizmarie1975:


If the church is so unhappy with the word marriage being used to define a union between a same sex couple, why doesn't the church start using different terminology? I am married to my husband sans religion. I am as married as my brother who got his license from the government and then had a ceremony performed in a church.


Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)



Quoting stacymomof2:

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 10:44 AM
2 moms liked this
That is what is happening now. I don't understand why you are saying it isn't. Legal same swx marriage will not prevent a church from not recognizing it. You can get married in a church but the state doesn't recognize the legality of it until you get your paper. On the flip side some churches currently di not recognize some legal marriages.

What did I miss about your argument?


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 


Quoting IhartU:




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.


 Thinking outside the box helps. 


You are not going to get the truly religious to endorse sin.  It just isn't going to happen.  Marriage is a holy sacrament and has been for centuries.  You don't just tell people to stuff their traditions.


You can however find a solution for everyone.


I don't know a singe very religious person that objects to rights that are being sought.  Those seeking rights should not object to a religous persons belief that marrage is holy.


The only thing preventing a reasonable solution is the government.  You might want to ask yourself why.  But, that is a whole other discussion.


The military is going to start allowing some benefits for those that have signed a Declaration of Partnership.  Why not extend this to all partnerships?  Everyone goes down to the courhouse, clerk...wherever and gets this legal paperwork.  What they do next in terms of a ceremony or celebration is on them and whoever will perform it for them.  Ta da...solution for everyone.  Well, everyone except those that are more interested in legislated acceptance than they are of rights.


 

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM
There is a different term already. But I get qhat you are saying. The issue is that people against ssm want thw government to follow their rules about the definition. It doesn't work that way in this country though.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)



Quoting stacymomof2:

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.
Woodbabe
by Woodie on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM
3 moms liked this

The Church already has a separate name...its called Holy Matrimony.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)

Quoting stacymomof2:

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.


 Sexy If its unladylike, fattening or fun, I'm in!
  

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM

 Marriage existed before christianity. Sorry but ya'll don't get to usurp the term and direct the use of it. If you want a separate term come up with one.


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting IhartU:


Quoting yourspecialkid:

 

Quoting IhartU:


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.

 Thinking outside the box helps. 

You are not going to get the truly religious to endorse sin.  It just isn't going to happen.  Marriage is a holy sacrament and has been for centuries.  You don't just tell people to stuff their traditions.

You can however find a solution for everyone.

I don't know a singe very religious person that objects to rights that are being sought.  Those seeking rights should not object to a religous persons belief that marrage is holy.

The only thing preventing a reasonable solution is the government.  You might want to ask yourself why.  But, that is a whole other discussion.

The military is going to start allowing some benefits for those that have signed a Declaration of Partnership.  Why not extend this to all partnerships?  Everyone goes down to the courhouse, clerk...wherever and gets this legal paperwork.  What they do next in terms of a ceremony or celebration is on them and whoever will perform it for them.  Ta da...solution for everyone.  Well, everyone except those that are more interested in legislated acceptance than they are of rights.

 

 Are you saying those who want a government marriage witjhout religion should be allowed to and those who want a religious marriage should be allowed to- without the goverment paperwork? I'm not sure...

 The fact is that no matter how much religious people think they own marriage, they don't. It's a contract and because the government has laws surrounding that contract when it comes to things like benefits and divorce and so on, there HAS to be an official, non-religious documentation of every marriage. There cannot BE just a religious ceremony.

 If they view gay marriage as a sin, that is there problem. We're not a theocracy and their personal religious views should have NO bearing on what other American citizens do. Why does it bother them so much that marriage is re-defined? Does it take away from their marriage? If so, then they have problems.



 I know you have issues with religious people...you have got to remove that from your thought long enought to wrap your mind around what I am saying.  Your answer is telling religious people to stuff it.  Is that really what you want, or do you want everyone to have the same legal rights?

A declaration of partnership would legally bind 2 people together.  There would be NOTHING else required by the government.  Anything else would merely be frosting..a celebration for some...a religious sacrament for others.

It is actually quite simple.

 


 

Luvnlogic
by Silver Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 10:58 AM
1 mom liked this
Yeah, Roma pointed that out. I've heard of holy matrimony, of course and I know the term marriage pre-dates Christianity. I'm just looking for a way forward that makes everyone happy...or equally miserable. I have my people-pleasing hat on today :)

Quoting Woodbabe:

The Church already has a separate name...its called Holy Matrimony.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

Right, what I'm talking about is a change of terminology. Some churches object to anything other than one man one woman being called "marriage". So use a diff term for the legal union, let each church call their unions what they like. I guess I didn't quite explain it right the first time. Blame it on lack of coffee ;)



Quoting stacymomof2:

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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN