Skip to main content

Neither Friend of Court or Culture: Obama Asks Supreme Court to Undermine Marriage Comments

On February 28, 2013, the Department of Justice of the Obama  Administration filed what is called a Friend of the Court or Amicus Brief in the case styled Hollingsworth v Perry.It should have come as no surprise to those who have been actually watching Barack Obama and his administration - and not simply buying into the sophistry which they offer with such regularity. Continue Reading

31 - 40 of 150 Comments

  1. Stephen
    2 years ago

    The question becomes for every honest believer in morality and virtue if the matter is so far gone in the US that a true believer must either emigrate or flee into the hills. Emigration is a drastic choice but may be necessary. (The problem of course for English speakers is that most English speaking nations, such as the UK and Canada, are even worse choices than the US.) If not to that point, one must seriously consider what alternatives there are by remaining in the US.

    Surely a conscientious believer must abandon life in the large cities or states which have adopted the decadent moral and social philosophy of Obama and the Democratic Party. There are a few areas remaining out there such as certain rural areas of Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. which hold out hope for a person who can no longer abide life in the vice ridden licentious regions of this once great nation. We owe it to our children (and ourselves!)to raise them in an environment not totally morally polluted. Is it that bad, really? In my considered view, the answer is,sadly, clearly in the affirmative.

  2. Clayton
    2 years ago

    Replying to "Replying to" - Yes, I am saying the government cannot intrude on our private in what goes on inside our house. No one (Not even Obama!) can make you open your door to a let married gay couples flood your living room! But in the public realm, equality is a necessary right, and the government is no longer intruding when it comes to rights, but upholding. This has happened many times in history before. With blacks, women, children...and will happen again.

  3. Brad Leutwyler
    2 years ago

    As is so frequently the case, the real issue here has become confabulated with non-issues.
    Our form of government, at its most fundamental level, is one of limited intrusion into the personal lives of the citizenry, who are one and the same with said government: we mutually agree that as a whole, we will stay out of each others' bee's wax. The Obama administration is now taking the position most strongly aligned with the original intent of the Constitution, i.e. the agents of government must apply legal principles to all people similarly situated, and do so in a similar manner. This comports squarely with most peoples' intuitive and intellectual sense of "fairness" and "equality" under the law. Make no mistake here. We are talking about human-made laws for the orderly operation of polite society.

    As individuals and groups, we can discriminate, judge, impose our will, etc. to a very large extent. No Catholic is compelled to recognize a gay couple as "married". Persons of Catholic faith are compelled, in any legal setting, to treat gay couples equally, just as Catholics are guaranteed equal treatment under the law when the government takes action toward them. Can gay couples be expelled from a church? Certainly, as the Church is not government, explicitly by design. Can any church deny a gay couple the right to be married within the church? Absolutely, because that is not government action.

    It is far more rational to view the Obama administration's position as favorable to the Catholic church (as well as to every other church) as it solidifies the philosophical principle equal protection under the laws of humans. Catholics cannot force their views on Muslims, nor can Muslims force their views on non-Muslims by way of the collective machinery of government. No religion may be compelled by the people (government) to accept gay marriage, actively promote or engage in gay marriage or otherwise adopt any affirmative support for something so fundamentally repugnant to their theological tenets. It is the GOVERNMENT, the collective "We the People," that must agree that we can disagree in a civil manner, while as a whole, treat each other as equals in the eyes of humanity, all equally endowed with great potential with an equal portion of failings. If some people fail to meet our individual standards, we must agree to disagree and as a society, treat each other equally, then get back to business.

    This is not about the goodness or badness of gay marriage, nor is it about the correctness of any person's moral interpretation thereof. Those are questions for Deacon Keith and Giordano Bruno to debate in the hereafter.

    If today, gay couples can be denied equal protection by the government, some day the tide could shift against straight couples, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics... This is about GOVERNMENT action, not diversity or correctness of moral judgment. We must all be treated equally under the law.

    Anything less is Talibanesque and leads to the divisive, irrational turmoil that has plagued the less-thinking for millennia.

  4. Johnathon
    2 years ago

    The Bible contains God's stand on marriage as being only between a man and a woman as Genesis 2:24 says :Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".Leviticus 18:22
    22 "`Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

    Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
    10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    Romans 1:25-27
    25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
    27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    Genesis 19:1-29 says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. It stinks in the nostrils of God. Genesis 13:13 identify the men of Sodom as exceedingly wicked sinners. Genesis 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom is "very grievous." Genesis 18:23 adds emphasis to the portrayal of the inhabitants of Sodom as "wicked." Genesis 18:24-33 shows that God could not find even 10 righteous souls in Sodom. The perverts who inhabited Sodom, even wanted to rape God's Angels who had come to Sodom to rescue Lot.

    It is God who determines right and wrong not mankind, Obama the emperor has had his own homosexual trysts so he is not a moral leader but a corrupt one. I appreciate the honesty of this article which is a very brave thing to do now a days in the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah that we live in.

  5. Andy Lord
    2 years ago

    The State should abdicate all authority regarding marriage. Stop issuing "marriage licenses" and issue civil union licenses to any two people that want one. Leave marriage as a private, religious (or, if the couple prefers, irreligious) institution. What business does the state have in deciding who can get married and who can't? Let churches, scientists, and philosophers decide what constitutes "Natural Law," not the state. This author seems to forget that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision mandating equal marriage rights in the Commonwealth was based on the premise that, if the state was in the business of issuing marriage licenses, it could not discriminate against gays any more than it could discriminate against them in issuing drivers licenses. Let's also remember that gay marriage was not even a blip on the radar screen when the Mass SJC decision came down. The lawsuit was brought by a lesbian couple after one of them had been denied spousal visitation rights in a hospital. There was no widespread gay marriage movement before that decision in 2003. And, for everybody's information, Massachusetts continues to have among the lowest divorce rates in the U.S., nearly 10 years later.

  6. Alex
    2 years ago

    The author fails to acknowledge a number of things that should be incorporated in this secular debate, even from the religious perspective he attempts to take. Number one is that homosexual relationships go beyond sexual exchanges (as the author tries to frame them) and check off every other box on his list with the exception of the ability to pro-create (though alternatives solve another societal problem). Same sex relationships are just as capable of meaningful love as any other.

    Second, is that studies have proven that same sex families are just as capable of creating families that raise productive members of society. Anyone who feels threatened by the acknowledgement of these peoples' civil rights in a secular society needs to do a little self examination. The Catholic perspective has its place and is not being persecuted, but when the viewpoint persecutes others in a non-Catholic state, it's time to realize where you sit.

  7. Reality
    2 years ago

    I am truly horrified at what my Catholic church has become. Shame on it. It has lost its way.

  8. Tom
    2 years ago

    A civil right belong to the fact that we exist as a human being - behaviors are optional and not civil rights. Behaviors can be good or bad, but not civil rights in and of themselves even if they are good. We have the civil right to be treated with dignity and respect, not to do what we want by abusing our freedoms. If we treat every human behavior as a civil right simply because we are successful at being able to silence our opponent or try to shame and blame them with a false arguement we devalue our human dignity and society as a result. Natural law is the truth and we should not allow the spin and intellectualization of false ideas be passed off as the truth - or proclaimed civil rights.

  9. Jenny S
    2 years ago

    my two cents: "They also then accuse those who defend true marriage of being against marriage because we will not redefine it to include homosexual or lesbian partnerships." no, we accuse those who defend "true" marriage of being against equality for all people.

    "Whenever a secular leader insists that we obey his dictates rather than the Natural Law, he is demanding to be worshipped." first off, it's spelled "worshiped". secondly, if you mean he is a secular leader because he makes decisions that seem to be have no religious bias, well then yes, he is. because he is the leader of a nation of people who many different faiths or no faith at all. his JOB is to remain unbiased, impartial. let us also not forget that he, himself, is a believer. but his job is NOT to govern based on HIS beliefs, but to be fair to all citizens regardless of their religious stance.
    "He has made himself the arbiter of the Moral Law, determiner of what is right and what is wrong. This role belongs to God alone, not President Obama." furthermore, he has not demanded worship from anyone. and while your God determines what is right and wrong for you, the rest of us live in THIS world, where discrimination against anyone will not be tolerated.

    "collaborators in the Judiciary and some elected officials who view themselves as liberators when they are injuring the common good and threatening the foundation of civil society." no they're not. they're protecting the rights of all citizens from crazy nut-jobs like you. no one is being injured or threatened. not even you!

    "Marriage is the first society into which children should be born, learn to be fully human, grow in virtue, flourish and take their role in families and communities." if you think that the only way a child can become a whole person is to be raised by one man and one woman alone, you're crazy. we were all raised by our grandparents, aunts and uncles, family friends, and some even by our church leaders. it takes a village. the homosexual family is no different than the heterosexual family, in that regard.

    "To live a faithful marriage is now countercultural." no. that's fine. to live a bigoted life and attempt to force it on others is counter-cultural.

    "In the United States and the Nations of the West there is a growing effort to suppress our rights to free expression, association and participation." no, you'll always have the rights to express how you feel. just like, every time you do, i have the right to express that you're being a major tool.

  10. Bob
    2 years ago

    A question: Since when did courthouse bureaucrats handing out legal documents become an accepted method of administering a sacrament?
    The right of the Catholic Church to deny gays and lesbians the right to the SACRAMENT of marriage is undeniable. The religious rite, however, is vastly different from the legal contract, and the conflation of the two is a logical fallacy, not a reasonable justification.

    Also, when I read that "This should also have come as no surprise to court watchers who recognize the strategic use of Courts and legislatures by the leaders of what is best called the Homosexual Equivalency movement" I laughed.
    Imagine the temerity! Using the legislative and judicial branches to legislate and judge! How dare they?!

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 27 Saint of the Day

St. Rupert
March 27: Bishop and missionary, also listed as Robert of Hrodbert. A ... Read More