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 (41-50):
LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM
1 mom liked this

 Yup, me too.  The state of Hawaii issued my marriage license, not somebody else's god, and yet I am just as married as my brother, who was married in a church. 


Quoting mikiemom:

 

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.

 

 

 


 

\

Communication is a two way street.  Don't expect me to listen to you if you refuse to listen to me.  We will never move forward until we all listen to EACH OTHER!!

jllcali
by Jane on Jun. 25, 2013 at 11:53 AM
1 mom liked this
My parents have a marriage certificate from the state, and a document of holy matrimony from the church they were married in.
TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM

 Loving is not an appropriate case to use, though everyone tries.   Loving did not redefine marriage at all.  It merely recognized that legitimate potential marriage partners of the opposite gender may have varying amounts of melanin.

This case is attempting to redefine what marriage is and always has been in every culture- a man and a woman who vow before God to become one until death do they part, and have (or at least be open to having)  a family. 

 

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:32 PM
1 mom liked this

christianity has not exclusive claim to the concept of marriage, and no standing to dictate its legalities

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:34 PM
3 moms liked this


FALSE.

theism isn't a prerequisite of marriage. 


Quoting TranquilMind:

 Loving is not an appropriate case to use, though everyone tries.   Loving did not redefine marriage at all.  It merely recognized that legitimate potential marriage partners of the opposite gender may have varying amounts of melanin.

This case is attempting to redefine what marriage is and always has been in every culture- a man and a woman who vow before God to become one until death do they part, and have (or at least be open to having)  a family. 

 



Autodidact, Unrepentant Heathen

TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM
1 mom liked this

 Why should the church have to change its established terminology?  Those who want something that is not marriage to be a relationship - they should call it something else. 

You may be married "sans religion" but you are still married under God, whether you acknowledge it or not.

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.

 

 

 

TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:37 PM

 False.  Whether recognized or unrecognized by the participants at the time, that is exactly what marriage is.

Quoting autodidact:

 

FALSE.

theism isn't a prerequisite of marriage. 

 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 Loving is not an appropriate case to use, though everyone tries.   Loving did not redefine marriage at all.  It merely recognized that legitimate potential marriage partners of the opposite gender may have varying amounts of melanin.

This case is attempting to redefine what marriage is and always has been in every culture- a man and a woman who vow before God to become one until death do they part, and have (or at least be open to having)  a family. 

 

 

 

 

lizmarie1975
by Gold Member on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:42 PM
2 moms liked this


I certainly am not married under god. No where during the entire ceremony, performed by our Town Supervisor, was the word god mentioned.

No one is asking the church to change its established terminology. But if they're going to throw a temper tantrum because the laws are changing to allow same sex marriage then they're either going to have to accept it or find something else.

The church doesn't own the word marriage.

Quoting TranquilMind:

 Why should the church have to change its established terminology?  Those who want something that is not marriage to be a relationship - they should call it something else. 

You may be married "sans religion" but you are still married under God, whether you acknowledge it or not.

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.



 



-Sweet.Tea-
by on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:47 PM
2 moms liked this
In your opinion. To others, love is the prerequisite, not the support of a particular deity.



Quoting TranquilMind:

 False.  Whether recognized or unrecognized by the participants at the time, that is exactly what marriage is.


Quoting autodidact:


 


FALSE.


theism isn't a prerequisite of marriage. 


 


Quoting TranquilMind:


 Loving is not an appropriate case to use, though everyone tries.   Loving did not redefine marriage at all.  It merely recognized that legitimate potential marriage partners of the opposite gender may have varying amounts of melanin.


This case is attempting to redefine what marriage is and always has been in every culture- a man and a woman who vow before God to become one until death do they part, and have (or at least be open to having)  a family. 


 


 


 


 


ashleyrenee24
by Ashley on Jun. 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Exactly. Religion did not invent marriage and no one religion owns it.

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.


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