continue at MkeCatHeraldArchbishop Jerome E. Listecki said he’s disturbed by a federal judge’s June 6 decision to overturn a 2006 amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution outlawing same-sex marriage that was voted on by the people.
“One judge takes it upon herself to challenge the will of the state, which is not necessarily what is coming from the citizens of the state,” he told the Catholic Herald Monday, June 9, referring to U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb. “Basically, this was a national effort and a national agenda that is attacking every state and each state should have a right to charter its own course.”
He said Crabb’s decision to rule unconstitutional Article XIII, Section 13 of Wisconsin’s Constitution, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, will not change church teaching.
“The teaching remains the same; marriage is between one man, one woman and there is logic to that,” the archbishop said, pointing to marriage as a means for propagation of the species, and the family unit as the basic unit of a stable society. “There are all sorts of natural reasons and on top of that, the aspect of the sacredness for us as Catholics, reflected in a relationship between a man and a woman, and when a court or any entity tries to redefine the reality, we have an obligation as teachers – I have an obligation – to voice my opposition to that and offer the appropriate teaching to the people.”
Image
6 comments:
Fortunately, in this case as in others in our history (slavery, inter-racial marriage to mention two) what is legal and a constitutional right is not determined by majority vote (referendum, state constitutional amendment).
Religious people can have other determinations for themselves but not for the public domain.
Have a problem with governmental authority, Archbishop? Sheesh. You're just like those folks who oppose Common Core.
fortunately the USA is not a "whatever the majority says is law" democracy, we also have a constitution to interrpret and to guide us. If we were a majority rules democracy I suspect slavery and no inter-racial marriage might still be the law of the land and and Wisconson voters saying "no" to same sex marrige would be the law.
Well yes, hopefully we don't have to go to war to resolve the issue. "Religious people" still constitute a vast majority of Americans so I assume you mean religious ideas. The philosophy of Natural Law exists outside of any particular religious expression.
Your understanding of history is poor or at least your argument is, although you do seem to understand race-baiting. I don't think that I have ever argued with a progressive with the progressive NOT resorting to race-baiting. Will progressives refer to race in another hundred years? How about a hundred years after that? The fact that most aborted babies are black is apparently inadmissible in any argument with a progressive. There was a Supreme Court decision; it was called Dredd Scott. Then there was an election; it was 1860 and it effectively overturned the Supreme Court decision. The voters did that. What is legal and a constitutional right WAS determined by majority vote. You do understand that the courts have mostly gotten social decisions wrong, right? Dredd Scott, Korematsu, Plessy, etc.
Typical progressive. Resort to race-baiting. Fact that most aborted babies are black doesn't mean anything to you. Because the USA isn't a "whatever the majority says is law" country, then how was slavery overturned? Whatever happened to that Supreme Court decision called Dredd Scott? Or Plessy? Or Korematsu? You do realize that the Brown decision had NO effect. It was legislators, yes, elected legislators who ended segregatory laws. Oh, and Republican legislators. The courts have consistently gotten social decisions wrong.
Post a Comment