How would Jesus rule…

…on same sex marriage?

I’m always leery of casting Jesus in the role of a political commentator. But the piece is basically sound in terms of giving us Jesus’ view of marriage, which presumes (duh) heterosexual monogamy and is ultimately referred to the relationship of Christ the Bridegroom and his bride the Church. Any attempt to press Jesus into the service of gay marriage is completely doomed.

This is hilarious
Hysteria about the Indiana RFRA is the Ebola Panic for Lefties
PC Agitprop
Your prayers for our Abp Sartain and the Seattle Archdiocese would be appreciated
  • Bob

    The writer seems to be kinda sorta doing that, though. On the question of civil marriage, he says:
    ” Jesus might have responded to a question about same-sex marriage by distinguishing between the spiritual ideal and pragmatic legal rules.”
    Adding that CS Lewis “argued for a pragmatic differentiation between the spiritual and the legal,” on the subject of British divorce law, the writer states: “In my view, Lewis was closer to the position staked by Jesus.”

  • Mike Doyle

    “This petition encourages Bishop Campbell to teach the holy Truths of our Church’s Magisterium without compromise and without apology. The greatest act of love our Church can perform for Carla Hale and the students at Bishop Watterson High School is to say “no” to Satan’s deceit. Love is a sacrifice.”

    A petition IN SUPPORT of Bishop Campbell has been launched today, please prayerfully consider signing and commenting:

    Thank you

  • Mike

    This question wouldn’t have even registered with 99.99% of people on earth up until like last tuesday LOL! This is IMHO not about marriage but about politics, pure and simple. It’s divisve and it has managed to divide good people on the so-called both sides of this issue, which is an invention without basis in reality.

    More than anything the attention paid to it reflects the neurotic concerns of a small group of elites who are increasingly feeling uneasy about their legacy and the prospects for their cherished creation secularism.

    I just hope the Court rules it’s best left to people to decide themselves.

    • dpt

      Well said Mike.
      It is a divisive political issue and soon there will be a hammer involved to get us to toe the party line. “Against ssm, you are a bigot.”

  • Pavel Chichikov

    “Same-sex marriage” is a symptom of the decay of a culture, a dying society.

    • TMLutas

      I agree that it is a symptom. I think the root is an inability to articulate what civil marriage (not religious, not sacramental) is. Go ahead and try to do it. It’s harder than it appears and people tend to get the icks and back away from you whenever you do so.

  • Observer

    Civil is still a matter of law. Although civil trials are not criminal, there is the courts, the judges, lawyers, and prosecution as well as the defendant who will makeup the case in law during a civil trial. You have a court of law, therefore, bringing a ruling and judgement on a case. Since the case is civil, there is the law. Civil marriage must, then, be in accord with justice (as laws are to bring about what is to be done justly.) Justice, thus, also means what sort of consequences of a decision can and will often lead to injustices to the parties (persons, entities, etc.) involved.

    Since marriage between a man and a woman is completely different by and large on many scales than a marriage between two people who carry the same gender, you cannot rule justly without giving each their due. Marriage, as such, that is between a man and a woman means potentiality of children. The exceptions where a man or a woman cannot conceive is not a justification before law whether or not adoption and artificial conception outside of the relationship of a particular man, and of a particular woman can be done.

    In many respects, the charge that children may come about through other prospects (adoption, artificial conception, and other processes alike) not having to do with the event of natural family planning (between a mother and father who naturally conceive), already shows that in order for children to exist in that relationship of two people carrying the same gender – who want to get married – means that such children to exist in those relations must go through a course of circumstances outside the norm which they are orindarily conceived in and by (a man and a woman who then become a father and a mother totally unique to that child or children in that relationship.)

    When you have adoption, you are referring to the necessity where the parents cannot or won’t raise that child to whom they had bore through birth (i.e. the child was born through them, and the parents could not take care of the child.) Even artificial conception means the chromosones of a man, and that of a woman must still carry on a process for a child to be conceived and to be born not in the ordinary bounds of that relationship of that particular man, and that particular woman. Thus, still out of necessity of a man and a woman, you cannot have children out of the synthesis of x and y chromosone. Further, the child grows on for more than just mere existence. And the state knows this from the atrocities in society of broken homes (the foster care system), and the increase of children joining gangs or being abused because of it.

    The basis of law, and foundation of justice upholds what is appropriate, right, and just in order to maintain a civil manner of law in respect to one’s neighbor. Afterall, any case – whether criminal or civil – means offense to either the public (the society) and what is oriented to their good, or the offense to the said persons in a dispute. Regardless, the laws and justice are to uphold what is correcly bound to protecting the public, and for the public good. And that is the universal respect to the persons in the case (a just and equitable decision.) And since the children who are born out of the makeup of that marriage between a man and a woman must be provided for – since they children – they are subjects of responsibility (persons), the state must inclusively weigh in the manner of justice their common good. And since no matter what arguments are laid down for the justification of persons of the having the same gender wanting to get married, children are not respectfully due to them. Children cannot go through an undo, unjust, and improper course of justice (i.e. having to be subjects under a couse of circumstances of adoption and artificial conception used in order to justify persons having the same gender in marriage.) That measure of equality does not exist. So, if someone asks what would Jesus think, or even decide, you have no ruling. Because, the truth is the truth (the truth speaks for itself.) The argument is validated by the data. Children cannot be exercised in the rule of justice and before the law, in order to maintain the justification of equality of perons of the same gender in marriage (having the same access as a man and a woman have in marriage), [they cannot] be maintained in such a way and manner which quite illustrates through the appeal of adoption that is made, and the even through artificial conception, that children must undergo a course of circumstances which circumvent the marriage entrusted to the man and woman who generally have them. That circumvention is using something that falls outside the course of marriage. Marriage is to maintain a relationship. And since that relationship of a man and a woman means children, you must in law advocate therein the same relationship for the children involved (as they are persons of that marriage.) Thus, what must be requisite of the law is the marriage of a man and a woman for which will have children, must be held accountable before law to protect, safeguard, and serve the overall well being of the child(ren) for their common good (which society’s common good is oriented to.) That is where marriage differs; marriage is not a matter of two consenting adults, since there is a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so on (the children born out of that relationship.) So, to ask what would Jesus judge or do is a matter of law which is expressively the matter and subject of the truth. And since truth is a matter of the data, you cannot overthrow justice nor the law by getting children out of the way of the argument in favor of marriage of two person’s of the same gender, and equivocating that marriage before law through the manner of adoption and artificial conception which must still contend with the fact that children are still born of a mother and father (two parents who have two different gender in married – or even unmarried – relationship giving birth to a child or children.) That difference is what both the law, and the parties who want equal access to marriage, must contend with. And since the truth is children are born – and quite often – out of that relationship between a man and a woman, you cannot otherwise have equal access to marriage as that of a man, and that of a woman (far apart from an act merely made between two consenting adults.)