Two prayers....

God's will be done and may He have mercy upon us all.

About Me

My photo
A Catholic who follows Rome & the Magisterium. I'm against gay "marriage", abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning. Altar girls, Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers and "Protestant" music in the Church doesn't bother me at all. A proud American retired submarine sailor. Our borders should be secured with a 10 ft. high fence topped by concertina wire with minefields out to 20 yards on both sides and an additional 10 yards filled with warning signs outside of that Let's get energy independent NOW! Back Israel to the max, stop appeasing followers of the Pedophile Prophet. Pro 2nd Amendment, pro death penalty, Repeal all hate crime legislation. Back the police unless you'd rather call a hippie when everything hits the fan. Get government out of dealing with education, childhood obesity and the enviornment. Stop using the military for sociological experiments and if we're in a war don't micromanage their every move. Kill your television, limit time on the computer and pick up a book. God's will be done and may He have mercy upon us all.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Gay "rights" trump religious beliefs...

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a Christian student group does not have the right to restrict its membership to practicing Christians, in a decision Christian rights groups are calling a significant blow to religious freedom.

The court decided 5-4 Monday in the case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez to uphold a California law school’s denial of official recognition of a Christian student group. The Christian group refused to agree to let non-Christians and those engaging in a "sexually immoral lifestyle" to become voting members or leaders.

The case has received national interest as the guidelines, which bar openly-practicing homosexuals from the group, came to be perceived as discrimination against homosexuals.

The majority decision, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ruled that the UC Hastings College of Law's decision was a fair application of its anti-discrimination policy. In what may set a grim precedent, the liberals on the court upheld the "rights" of non-discrimination according to sexual orientation over rights of religious freedom by comparing Christian beliefs to racist beliefs: Justice John Paul Stevens asked, "What if the belief is that African-Americans are inferior?"

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which filed an amicus brief in the case representing numerous Christian campus organizations, called the outcome an "extremely disappointing decision" that "significantly damages the constitutional rights of religious organizations."

"The majority of the Supreme Court missed the mark in understanding that it is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.

"By permitting a discriminatory decision by the federal appeals court to stand, the Supreme Court decision represents, as Justice Alito correctly concluded in the dissent, 'a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.' And, we, like Justice Alito, hope this decision will be an aberration and not a shift in First Amendment jurisprudence."

The case involved a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit siding with the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Hastings denied official recognition to a student group – the Christian Legal Society (CLS) – after CLS said it could not abide by the school’s non-discrimination policy. That policy forbids student groups from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, "religion." CLS says its religious beliefs prevent non-Christians from exercising control over the group by becoming voting members or serving in leadership positions.

In a dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas, Justice Alito concluded that the majority decision "is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country."

"Our First Amendment reflects a 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,'" wrote Justice Alito, citing the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. "Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated - by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration."

In its amicus brief filed at the high court, the ACLJ contended that religious groups are constitutionally protected in following their religious beliefs.

"Religious groups by their nature embrace religious principles and, as a matter of organizational identity and coherence, will normally require adherence to such principles as a criterion for membership and certainly for leadership," the brief asserted. "This is not 'discrimination' but rather part and parcel of what defines them as religious groups. Wooden application of religious 'non-discrimination' policies therefore forces religious groups to choose between their religious identity and access to the forum. That 'choice' is an unconstitutional one between yielding to government intermeddling and no access at all. Far from a permissible condition on benefits, this is a choice that the government, under the Religion Clauses, has no business imposing on religious groups."

So what comes next? Will churches that refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for homosexuals be hauled into court? What about the reception of Communion (although the prohibition against active homosexuals receiving is ignored all too often already.) How about taking it a step further with the denial of women entering a seminary, will that also occasion lawsuits? (This last example was modified after an insightful query by Arby in the comment section.)

All too soon I feel we'll see a schism in the Catholic Church as those willing to follow the direction of the secular government split off from those who follow Rome. The result will be ongoing legal persecution against the latter group.

20 comments:

Rick said...

Courts should avoid creating new rights that were not originally defined in the constitution.

Also, this new right to be gay is tantamount to an affirmation of a state religion. But this is not constitutional because it is favoring one religion over the other.

Arby said...

"How about openly gay men denied entry into a seminary, will that also occasion lawsuits?"

If an openly "gay" man seriously commits to the celibacy requirements of Catholicism in the same manner that an openly straight man commits to them, may he join the seminary and become an ordained priest? Is the sin in the inclination or the action?

Subvet said...

Rick, unconstitutional or not we may soon be living under the supremacy of this "religion". Regarding past unconstitutional act that were okayed by the Supremes, look to the Dredd Scott Decision.

Arby, I admit to not knowing if being openly gay but celibate would disqualify a man from the priesthood. Since any gay man would only be recognized as such by committing homosexual acts OR by making a point of bringing it up himself, I'd think the deck might be stacked against his ordination from the start. Perhaps it's a bad example to use. Think I'll modify it to address women priests.

Harry said...

Do you thinks this decision will apply to Islamic groups? Of course, a gay man might be welcomed into an Islamic organization with a necktie party.

VSO said...

Why am I not surprised that that the commie fag-enablers on the SCOTUS put a chill on religious freedom? The state religion of Lucifer is coming.

I can't speak for the RCC but any man with such an inclination is not supposed to be ordained in the Orthodox Church. It'd be like hiring young sailors to guard a sorority house. They could be tonsured but no further. But as we see on www.pokrov.org some manage to conceal it.

WomanHonorThyself said...

So what comes next? Will churches that refuse to perform "marriage" ceremonies for homosexuals be hauled into court? ..probably..Heaven help us~!

sig94 said...

I believe the Mark of the Beast will arrive as the last in a series of events designed to make it nearly impossible to publicly acknowledge that you are a believer. The raging lesbian that Obongo wants to install on the Supreme Court is just another step.

Subvet said...

Harry, I think the clash between gays & Muslims will be resolved by them turning a blind eye to each other as they both continue dismantling our culture. If they ever reach an end point, I'd expect the gays to drop out of sight faster than you can say "tutti-fruitti."

VSO, as I said to Arby I really don't know how it's officially handled by our church but I think there'll be a stricter screening for aberrant tendencies from now on due to the sex abuse scandals.

WHT, I've no doubt it's in the cards.

Sig94, amen. B.O. & Co. are just symptoms of our culture. Even if they're voted out in 2012, the underlying problem will remain.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

This is what happens when moral people refuse to rise up in defense of their God given rights.

If we do not learn the lesson that pacifism wins little or nothing, or if we don't cherish our rights and freedoms enough to fight for them, then we have lost already.

For those who are clueless, the Constitution of the United States NEVER contained a RIGHT to engage in Homosexuality; it Never contained a RIGHT to murder the unborn; nor did it contain a RIGHT to commit adultery or any other number of acts. All of those were NEVER the intent of the Privacy Clause.

We have sat back for many years and allowed a bunch of unelected moral reprobates to insert meanings and intents into the Constitution that NEVER belonged there.

I'm sorry, but even though Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they are not immune from impeachment. We still have a voice, at least for a little while longer, we should use it!

Subvet said...

Rev. Gregori, I think if we reach a point where the normal folk decide they've had enough tyranny of the elites, we'll see blood in the streets. Impeachment won't work, it'll be nullified. It's going to take violence. Hope I'm wrong on that one.

MightyMom said...

But what if the group want to exclude blacks??? WTF??!!!! There ARE groups active right now that exclude whites!! And others that exclude women, or men.

Subvet said...

MM, middle class white Christian/Jewish males are now accepted as second class citizens.

WomanHonorThyself said...

Just dropped in to see what condition your condition was in..lol..ok seriously..just wanted to tell ya I'm adding u to my blogroll asap. KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT~!

Jennifer said...

What exactly do you have against homosexuals? Did a gay man hit on you or something and it just burned an image into your mind that homosexual people are evil or something? WHat would you do if one of your children came up to you one day and told you they were gay/bisexual? Would you disown them?

It's pretty upsetting that a lot of people are sooooo closed minded these days. I can understand if we were back in the 1950s, but this is 2010. You need to get over yourself. Oh, and i would really like to get a response from you, you know, to read what you have to say about it.

Jenn said...

What exactly do you have against homosexuals? Did a gay man hit on you or something and it just burned an image into your mind that homosexual people are evil or something? WHat would you do if one of your children came up to you one day and told you they were gay/bisexual? Would you disown them?

It's pretty upsetting that a lot of people are sooooo closed minded these days. I can understand if we were back in the 1950s, but this is 2010. You need to get over yourself. Oh, and i would really like to get a response from you, you know, to read what an intellectual like yourself has to say about it.

Subvet said...

Jennifer, I don't believe homosexuality is normal in any sense of the word. It's a disorder brought on by early trauma. I base this on the experiences related to me by gay men. You get to know quite a few when you go to AA meetings, it's a great place to meet dysfunctional folk (yep, pot calling kettle black here. Doesn't take away from the truth of what I say.)

I see no reason why any religiously oriented group should be forced by secular authorities to compromise their principles. Period. If that involves excluding gay folk from membership, too bad and so sad.

BTW, IAW with the Catechism of the Catholic Church I'm bound to love my gay brothers & sisters even while condemning their sinful lifestyle. Please don't try telling me they can't help indulging that lifestyle, I could use that very same argument to justify my alcoholism. I don't because I realize I've free will that enables me to hold my "natural" urges in check. So if I can do it, gay folk can do it.

End of story.

Arby said...

Subvet, I only asked my question because sin is sin. Every sinner who enters the seminary and is ordained is an ordained sinner. Paul clearly states that we all fall short of the glory of God. That includes priests. What if the church ordains a kleptomaniac? A man who lusts after women? If they keep these sinful inclinations in check can they faithfully serve? If a gay man keeps his inclinations in check, can he faithfully serve? Is the problem in the desire or in acting out the desire? When Father Rogers was busted in the prostitution sting in Parkville, Missouri, a few years ago he was found in a hotel room with a female prostitute. All he was doing was acting out on his urges. Should he be defrocked?

I agree that we should allow religious institutions to set the rules for their members. I agree that the government should not interfere. I also see homosexuality as a lightening rod sin that seems to trump all other sins in that it instantly disqualifies a gay man or woman from participating in many Christian religious activities, but that same rigid standard is not held up for people who sin in other ways.

There are no easy answers, and I certainly do not have them.

Subvet said...

Arby, like yourself I have no quick & easy answers. If I did I'd be advising the Pope (scary thought).

The main point of this post was that the courts are becoming increasingly involved in the area of religion. As an example, there was a lesbian couple that successfully sued a Methodist church in New Jersey (I think, might have been another state) because use of a church facility was denied them for their "wedding".

We both agree that isn't a good thing.

Jenn said...

But what if your child loved someone of the same sex? Would you not love and care for him/her anymore because it happens to go against what the church says? And describing homosexuality like a disorder is a bullshit thing to do. It would just be like saying that heterosexuality is a disorder.

Subvet said...

Jenn, it's hardly bullshit. You can't describe heterosexuality as a disorder because it's perfectly normal as proven by it's ability to propagate the human race. Homosexuality is abnormal. Period. It's a disorder in it's own right.

As for my kids being gay and not loving them, that wouldn't happen. But I WOULD NOT condone their aberrant "lifestyle". For example, their "significant other" would not be allowed in my house. If that caused a rift between my child and I then so be it.

Homosexual acts are mortal sins. Anyone engaging in them will go to Hell. End of story. Likewise, condoning homosexual acts is a mortal sin. That means if I turn a blind eye to my children's acting on an attraction to members of the same sex, I'm slated for damnation until I repent.

I'm not going to Hell for anyone, including my children.

Furthermore, the Church doesn't tell me not to love my children OR anyone else because of their homosexuality. We're encouraged to love the sinner but hate the sin they commit. That means try our best to help one another to do the will of God. ALL of us are sinners. End of story.

Blog Archive

THIS is depressing!!

THIS is depressing!!
Our education system must have REAL problems!

Proper Care of The Koran

Proper Care of The Koran
A place for everything and everything in it's place

Our Lady of America, pray for us (we need it!)

St. Gabriel Possenti, (unofficial) patron saint of handgun owners, pray for us.

Humane blogger award

Humane blogger award