tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post1261774521211062724..comments2024-03-28T05:13:57.330-04:00Comments on Can We Cana? A Community to Support Catholic Marriages: Sexual Self-Determination Is the New Self-Evident TruthAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03565037705407249484noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-76182821289099028502013-07-05T11:12:49.630-04:002013-07-05T11:12:49.630-04:00Excellent comment, James.Excellent comment, James.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03565037705407249484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-76264675423997102522013-07-05T10:45:30.679-04:002013-07-05T10:45:30.679-04:00Actually, I see hedonism as the symptom of a much ...Actually, I see hedonism as the symptom of a much larger problem. <br /><br />The real problem is sentimentalism. Sentimentalism is the idea that morality is grounded in emotion, not reason. It's the idea that if it "feels right", then it must be right, and if it "feels wrong", then it must be wrong. Because everyone's feelings are different, not offending others becomes the ultimate virtue. Truth is determined by emotional response, not logic and reason. But actual truth may be difficult, while lies pleasant sounding.<br /><br />This is the dictatorship of relativism.<br /><br />As for this issue sexual liberty "feels right" to most people, because sex feels good. Protesting hedonism without addressing the underlying sentimentalism makes one sound like a killjoy and convinces no one.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426782100196550563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-84513073951545140442013-07-04T12:21:32.813-04:002013-07-04T12:21:32.813-04:00I agree that society must change in order for poli...I agree that society must change in order for policies to change. Supreme Court decisions frequently lag behind societal mores. If current Supreme Court decisions are a sign of underlying seismic shifts that have already occurred, religious liberty could face great difficulty in this country in the future.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03565037705407249484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-60801224224611508992013-07-04T12:06:01.374-04:002013-07-04T12:06:01.374-04:00My view is that our society has transition to one ...My view is that our society has transition to one of hedonism, and particularly a form that is psychologically/physiologically addictive when you combine the normalization of pornography, natural bonding hormones, and a society of children who have grown up with divorced parents who do not understand the value of healthy and loving relationships. <br /><br />I have long viewed the Constitution as a delicate balancing of rights that can only be maintained by good faith efforts, grounded in natural law. But this is not the way our Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution for at a minimum decades, possibly centuries. With that balance off and no way to truly interpret the constitution in a just manner consistent with natural law, due to the egregious contortions of reason that make up our precedent, I don't see things changing anytime soon. Society must return to moral behavior before policy will be forced to follow. <br /><br />I have often wondered, what would prompt that to happen. I have thought back to the Early Church and Constantine the Great and how God guided and built His Church up. He can do that if He wants - no question. But - will He, does He want to do that type of thing again now? I of course do not know. <br /><br />I believe a change of circumstances within our country could prompt a significant resurgence in religious belief and moral behavior. If we go through great economic hardship, perhaps if all of the "securities" of our machines and our insurance companies were to fail - or any other circumstances that prevent the luxury of maintaining the illusion of consequence-less immorality. I do not wish hardship on our nation obviously, but I do wish for another "Great Awakening" of sorts. Also if our social welfare state safety net fails, people will have to turn back to their families, they will have to make sacrifices, they wont have time or money to worry about whether they can get their weekly fix of consequence-delayed sexual satisfaction. II say this because the consequences still exist, whether we realize them in this world or the next.) When you do not have much, you realize more clearly how you are blessed and what is really important. <br /><br />Currently, those who make our policy have placed sexual liberty over religious liberty. I am not sure if that represents the majority - though I believe they have many people fooled that it does. However, if you asked people to give up birth control, even many people within marriages would be upset - this is what worries me the most.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-18418595335462901272013-07-04T09:40:52.987-04:002013-07-04T09:40:52.987-04:00That is, Kennedy will see the HHS Mandate as a rel...That is, Kennedy will see the HHS Mandate as a religious freedom case, not a sexual freedom case, and will strike it down.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426782100196550563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-39571246423159899552013-07-03T21:59:23.339-04:002013-07-03T21:59:23.339-04:00My tax law professor was fond of saying that the t...My tax law professor was fond of saying that the tax code trumps the Constitution. We'll see how it all plays out.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03565037705407249484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389410365846038121.post-41873448212339767512013-07-03T20:29:58.172-04:002013-07-03T20:29:58.172-04:00Justice Kennedy wrote Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. ...Justice Kennedy wrote Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and was the key vote on PP v. Casey. Very similar language is in these decisions, so Windsor is nothing surprising.<br /><br />Still, his jurisprudence is more libertarian than progressive.<br /><br />He has a record of supporting freedom of expression and association over sexual freedom. He was the deciding vote in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which allowed the Boy Scouts to ban gay Scoutmasters. He has also voted in favor of the free speech rights of abortion clinic protesters.<br /><br />He is generally supportive of religious freedom. <br /><br />He did not believe the federal government had the power to enact ANY of Obamacare, including the HHS Mandate and wrote a blistering dissent.<br /><br />I think Kennedy sees this as a religious freedom case, and votes to strike it down. I wouldn't be too surprised if all nine saw it that way.<br /><br />The big problem is the plurality opinion on Obamacare viewed it as a tax, and the federal government gets far more deference on the tax code than in other areas. If they view the penalty as a tax (and compliance as a tax break), then it will be a difficult case to argue about why people shouldn't be paying taxes because of their religious beliefs.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426782100196550563noreply@blogger.com