What the Supreme Court decision does and does not do

 

G and I in 1966 on our wedding day!

I see a lot of excitement on both sides of the fence in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision which stated that laws restricting marriage to male and female were unconstitutional but there appears to be a lot of confusion as to what the decision means, practically speaking. For example, the Supreme Court decision does not allow folks to marry their dogs (sorry about that, dog lovers!)

One of the problems is that many folks drop out of High School in the third year and even if they do finish High School, they may not have been required to take a course in "Government".  And even if they did take such a course, it likely, was not the intense course we, in our High School, had back in the 1960's - G and I had the best teacher we ever had for government and both of us really learned a lot.  Our teacher also suggested a lot of supplementary reading and I, unlike many, I suppose, did do the supplementary reading - for example the book, "ADVISE AND CONSENT" and the like.

So considering all of this, here is my explanation.  The Supreme Court decision renders any federal laws restricting marriage to male and female, unconstitutional - except I found out that the specifics who can marry what, are not found on the federal level (in the 14th Amendment) but rather in the state laws.

The first couple who wishes to do a s/s marriage on the state level, will have to take the state to court to question the law against the recent Supreme Court decision.  The couple will win, of course, but this takes time and money and provides business for attorneys.  It's not a "slam dunk".  Couples following that first couple, who are s/s will then, be able to marry in that particular state.

This is only on the civil level.  Catholic priests, for example, will NOT be forced to give the Sacrament of Marriage (which is separate from civil marriage) to s/s couples - there are many rules about the Sacrament of marriage in the Catholic church - for example, priests may also not marry divorced folks unless they have had their first marriage(s) annulled and so forth.  This will not change because we do have, guaranteed, by the constitution, "freedom of religion".

I hope people in reading this blog, will relax a bit - I know in doing the research, I felt a lot better about the situation.

Pope Francis - much loved by the poor and lowly and hated by the media

Pope Francis reaching out to people

It seems that the Media hates Papa Francis - they are doing the "Sarah Palin" thing with him, ranting and raving and taking his speeches out of context etc. I would hope that Catholics would educate themselves so they can defend - sadly many believe the media more than they do the Gospel.

The following quote was taken from the article a friend on a "social networking site" provided.... The author of this article in a newspaper called "the federalist" wrote:  "The encyclical tells us much about the man who delivers it. Straightaway, it certifies the depth and span of this pope’s megalomania. A breathtaking strut into absolutism, it is addressed not simply to Catholics but, like the “Communist Manifesto,” to the whole world. "

Megalomania.... the humble character who until he was Pope, rode the city bus to work... really? "Communist Manifesto"? Notice the "author" of this article discounts Pope Francis' strong statements about how what is ruining the ecology is the widespread immorality and millions of humans aborted. That's the real bottom line - they hate his strong stand on abortion. Good going, Papa Francis... you are walking in the Footsteps of our Blessed Savior with your unpopularity with the media - afterall, we follow a man who was crucified for similar views...  I just hope people are smart enough to realize what the media is doing or trying to do - and therein lies my worry, because I know several Catholics who believe the media like it's gospel and question the Gospel like it's the media...

My wise husband's comment about this all,  was "You can imagine what CNN would have done to Jesus!" ;)  (He also, added that CNN would have had Jesus on the cross quicker than those who crucified Him did!)

Sue