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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 "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."


by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Replies (31-40):
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM


I am not christian and I am married. The christian religion had absolutely nothing to do with my marriage. I have a legal document from the court in the state of Virginia, that is the only thing that defines my marriage.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

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



by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM
1 mom liked this

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 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

First off, I don't have problems with religious people, I have problems with religion infiltrating the government and those who support that.

It's not telling them to stuff anything. Anyone should be free to get married- I'm talking about the paperwork and ceremony at the courthouse. If they want to have a church wedding besides that, then so be it, BUT I'm not saying churches should be forced to preform a wedding on gays when their beliefs are against that. I believe in total separation of church and state and what religious people have to understand is that although they may view marriage as something religious, it's really not.

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.

That's what a marriage is already. The government says you need to declare it on written paper and then then you can go off and have your religious ceremony or not. So what is the problem?

by Obama licker on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Well if James Dobson says so...
by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM
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.


No, religion needs to get out of the marriage businesses. This will not be solved without the government, because gay people don't have all the rights straights have under the law!
by Redwood Witch on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:08 AM
4 moms liked this
Bullshit. That's just how you want to see it.

I'm not looking to tell anyone to stuff it. It's awful hypocritical of these people to say SCOTUS doesn't get to define marriage, and then turn around and demand that everyone follow their definition of marriage. Marriage should be equal. If you want Holy Matrimony on top of that, then go for it. No one is trying to take that away.

Quoting yourspecialkid:

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


by Whoopie on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM

They can have an opinion, just like everyone else.

Someone needs to explain the difference between a democratic republic and a theocracy.

by Woodie on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM

No problem! Marriage should just be the term for everyone, then the church can have its separate 'entity' with Holy Matrimony. Its already like that, you have to go to the courthouse to get a Marriage Licence. You can then choose a civil or religious ceremony. If the govt. is issuing the 'permission' to get married already, then its simply changing the permissions when you include same sex marriage. Its then up to the individual churches to determine whom they will administer the Rite of Holy Matrimony, according to their set of values and beliefs.

Quoting Luvnlogic:

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.

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

by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM
3 moms liked this

So let's seperate the two -- Holy Matrimony and marriage contracts.  Anybody who wants to be married goes down to the courthouse ONLY and gets a license and has a judge witness and sign a legally binding contract of marriage.  And if Chrisitans want the rights that come with the legal contract, they can do exactly as outlined above.  Then they can take themselves to their church if they ALSO want to be joined in the RELIGIOUS sacrament of holy matrimony.  Same with any other religion that has their own special ceremony for binding people together.  No more of ANY religious ceremony conferring ANY civil rights whatsoever.  None.  If you don't go through the courts, you don't get a single civil benefit. 

by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM
If they said the supreme court has no authority to redefine holy matrimony, I would agree, as that is a religious thing, and marriage itself is not.
by Obama licker on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM
1 mom liked this
I don't think the hard core Christians actually understand te history of marriage.
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)