from The Gray Area:

Friday’s historic ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Same Sex marriage has understandably been the source for many conversation and observations in news media, social circles, church and families over this weekend. In observing public reviews and opinions and participating in social, church and families discussions i am further convinced that every opinion on the subject is correct. But people are rarely talking about the same thing.

Though they think they are, they are usually not discussing the same issue, or including sub issues, unintended consequences or impacts in their discussion. This is because they are discussing the broad issue described by political special interests and the media, but not the real issues associated with this subject of same sex marriage. As a result, people that agree on most of this debate can seem diametrically opposed. Of course, you never get 100% to agree on anything! But if you try to create confusion, the way you describe a debate can make this universal fact worse. When discussing what the ruling actually does, you can get puled into this debate and all agreement on the first point is lost.

the simple political reality is that the fight over gay marriage has long been over. Public opinion has surged in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to marry over the last decade, and young people (even Republican young people) are far more tolerant of allowing gays to marry than are those 65 years and older.

Only extreme left & right activists benefit from disagreement on this subject. Its the activism stupid! And the difference in the state and the church. The left always wants to espose the separation of church and state unless it can destroys the church by including it. The objective is the same, marginalize or destroy the church. So including it is selective and hypocritical, but what else is knew.

Here is what I mean.

There are at least seven major issues in this debate which are usually included in every discussion of the SCOTUS ruling Friday; what did SCOTUS decide, winners and losers, societal acceptance of LGBT persons, same sex unions, the Constitution/Rule of law, religious freedom, and left & right wing activism.

What did SCOTUS decide?
Outside of the left and right activists, most everyone agrees with the idea, maybe not the Supreme Court being the one to decide it, but with the idea.

winners and losers.
Both Democrats & Republicans. That sigh of relief you heard following the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide wasn’t just from LGBT activists; it also came from savvy Republicans who had been quietly rooting for just that decision for a very long time. Publicly, of course, most Republicans, and particularly those running for president, disagreed with the ruling to one degree or another. … The court’s ruling now gives Republicans a very clear way to both satisfy their base while also not alienating the rest of the country. I don’t agree with what the court said, you can hear a Republican running for president saying, but it is now the law of the land and I will respect it. So Democrats win the argument today and lose the battle without the argument in 2016. Republicans lose the argument today and win the battle without the argument in 2016. When discussing what the ruling actually does, you can get puled into this debate and all agreement on the first point is lost.

societal acceptance of LGBT persons

same sex unions

the Constitution/Rule of law
The majority’s argument, expressed by Justice Kennedy, is that the right of same-sex couples to marry is based in individual autonomy as related to sexuality, in marriage as a fundamental right, in marriage as a privileged context for raising children, and in upholding marriage as central to civilization. But at every one of these points, the majority had to reinvent marriage in order to make its case. The Court has not merely ordered that same-sex couples be allowed to marry – it has fundamentally redefined marriage itself. …But marriage is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. As the Chief Justice asserted in his dissent, the majority opinion did not really make any serious constitutional argument at all. It was, as the Chief Justice insisted, an argument based in philosophy rather than in law. … “The majority,” he made clear, “lays out a tantalizing vision for the future for Members of this Court. If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can?”

That is a haunting question. This Chief Justice’s point is an urgent warning: If the Supreme Court will arrogate to itself the right to redefine marriage, there is no restraint on the judiciary whatsoever.

Religious Liberty

The church should neither cave nor panic.
Most people you talk to do not understand the religious aspect on this subject. They won’t or don’t admit that, but it is clear they have no idea if anything worthwhile exists in the religious fear of same sex marriage. It is the dignity of the individual and the high standard of marriage, that people of faith want to defend. Love and respect are the hallmark of every Christian faith. The personal dignity, of each human being, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, is their natural and civil right. Every sign of unjust discrimination regarding LGBT individuals should be avoided. All children are the children of God who loves them unconditionally and we are called to love each other as Christ has loved us.

MORAL AND PASTORAL RESPONSES TO SAME-SEX UNIONS. Understanding same-sex unions in the context of morality requires an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches concerning homosexuality in order to provide pastoral advice. The Church distinguishes between sexual orientation and sexual acts. In regards to sexual orientation, persons do not choose this as a condition of their lives and it is therefore not a question of morality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states: Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained (p. 566). All persons are created in the image and the likeness of God (Gn. 1:26-27) and as such each one possesses something of divine goodness. The CCC also states that homosexual acts are wrong because they violate God’s purpose for human sexual activity(p. 566). Although homosexual acts are gravely sinful and unnatural, objectively and intrinsically disordered according to natural law, the personal dignity of each human being, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, is their natural and civil right, which flows from that dignity. Acts contrary to natural law does not make the person contrary to natural law. The CCC further states: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided(p. 566). For example, persons with homosexual tendencies may not be denied food, clothing, housing, medical care, protection from violence, or jobs in the public sector.

Same sex unions that have the status of marriage under civil law are not the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Church. The church has a higher standard for marriage than the state has. It connects marriage to God, not just individuals. And it connects them to God for a purpose, which same sex persons cannot perform-union to create children. bound up with the gospel itself, a picture of the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:32). What is legal is not necessarily moral. While many in the religious community cannot live up to the high standards of marriage the church defines. It does not then require the church to lower its standard. It is the church’s responsibility to continue to illustrate the benefits of the higher standard of practice.

When the explanation is presented, everyone usually goes , ah, is that it? Well then i understand their point. It may be overblown or right on, but i understand it now. For example, this is the best i have seen it explained by a Catholic church.

Left & right wing activism.
Across the cultural landscape, the national consensus is evolving rapidly as noted in the graphic. But the activists on the left want to use this momentum for more than acceptance, equality. They have equality by any definition in this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But they want more. They want zero consequences associated with their lifestyle. They don’t just want to stop discrimination, they want to criminalize people who don’t like them. They want it to be so socially acceptable that every person must salute the rainbow flag wherever it is presented. And the most extreme want this effort to be part of the strategy
to bring social confusion to the American landscape. Why? Because moral decay & social confusion further their ‘progressive’ goal of Marxism. This issue, plus, race relations, welfare and poverty, religious freedom, income inequality, class envy and elimination of national pride together tear at the fabric of America enough to accomplish this “fundamental change’ described in 2008.

Justice Samuel Alito stated bluntly that the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” According to the argument offered by the majority, any opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in moral animus against homosexuals. In offering this argument the majority slanders any defender of traditional marriage and openly rejects and vilifies those who, on the grounds of theological conviction, cannot affirm same-sex marriage.

“Most Republicans look at what’s happening and think we’re watching a new stage of left-wing nuttiness,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). “It’s just surreal.” The GOP’s activist base wants its leaders to fight loudly for traditional, Christian values and sew together a moral fabric they see as frayed, even shredded.

It is the activism that gets people on the right up in arms. And the media leads in pushing the activism. From being forced to not only accept, but support a lifestyle they cannot themselves every agree to participate in, to remaining quiet while they watch complete moral decay in our country. If there is oe thing that is keeping this debate alive, it is the activism. It must stop.

Dug in on both sides. This country’s success over the past 258 years has been based among other things on not letting the extremes dominate the otherwise agreeable populace. Unfortunately, over the past 20 years, this has changed and the extremes dominate the debate.

Look for that which unites us, you will find it. ON this one subject you can see how the vast majority of Americans agree on most aspects of this debate. That is the best yo can hope for. Because the universal truth is you never get 100% to agree o anything. So, look for that which unites us, you will find it.Because there is more that unites us than divides us.