Skip to main content

So Two Priests Want To Get Married... could be next BIG Supreme Court head scratcher.

Now you might say to yourself, "Self, the Roman Catholic church does not allow it's priests to get hitched, period".  Yep, but you see that is the Church's law, not man's.   No, Pope Francis would not allow two of his shepherds to flock up, but they could certainly just walk into any convenient Justice O' Peace (or cruise ship Captain if "Love Boat" is to be believed) and said "I do".    But, I want to ask the Supremes if this is constitutional.   If God says it's not cool, what is up with the USA government undermining that wish.

But hey you say: "Depends what states they's in cause they're gay!"

No, they are not gay silly!   No, I just want to ask the Supreme Court IF a manly guy priest wants to marry a feminine gal priest is that constitutional.   Seriously.  Don't mock me ... I AM SERIOUS!

Oh, but now you get all up in my face with your fingers and say,  "UH UHHHH, no way booger.   She can't be a priestess.  GOD SAYS."  

Point taken.   But don't USA laws say that no one can be  barred from a job that they are qualified for due to gender or race?   What if she were black (I don't know, honest)?  Surely the DOJ would be sending feds into the temples if men were barred from the robes.   BUT THAT'S TRADITION... GOD SAID... again :(

You see, in this Land of the Free and home o' religious liberty, churches get a free pass to ignore labor laws and evade taxes while they have the liberty to condemn those who question their dogma.   Heck, I'm a Catholic m'self, but they think I'm going to Hell.   My Cafeteria Catholocism (not officially recognized but the most popular sect of Catholics here in the USA) says that regardless of what Il Papa says in the Vatican my wife can use contraception and teh gays can get hitched.   My guess is a lot of Baptists feel the same way but since their holy men also get to preach politics they have taken a very influential hold on one of our two political Parties (guess which one for extra credit).   I'll let my Neandrethal touchstone, Eric Erickson make the point better than I can:

For years, liberals have peddled a emo weepy Jesus who loves everyone and tolerates everyone and everything. They ignore that the tolerance of Christ only goes so far.
Someone wrote that.   Someone said that my "turn the other cheek" Jesus is a weepy emo... I grew up thinking no one in public discourse would ever talk this way.   Erickson isn't on the fringe, he represents the footsoldier, the primary Primary voters.   Don't believer that?   Remember Rick Santorum leading the GOP polls?   Remember Michelle Bachman day in the sun?   Remember Herman Cain?   Heck, Erickson is hardly the fringe, the fringe is far scarier and many haunt Capitol Hill.   Many state legislatures are indeed controlled by trolls worse than Erickson.   The world is upside down.  

Here in America man's law used to trump Sharia Law no matter what biblical interpreters said.   40-50 years ago, back in the "Good Ole' Days" that GOPers pine so much for, no sane national politician would mix religion into policy talk outside of Southern fundraisers.   A quadannual visit from Billy Graham took care of the pander and it was off to arguing about grown up stuff.   Now Republicans have given the keys to the Cadillac to their pet constituency.

Yep, in my perfect "weepy emo" world the Supremes would rule on the wacko-birds (John's words not mine).   Tell that that girl she can indeed be a priest.   She can indeed get married ... to another girl if she wants.   And their church can pay Caesar taxes on all of their profits just like any other entertainment business.

I can see Antonin Scalia having a petite mal on the floor thinking about it.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  As the late Dave Allen said... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, Calamity Jean

    ..."If two priests fall in love and want to get married, let`em!"

    And may their G-d go with them!

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:43:52 PM PDT

  •  Rock on, Dude! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You tell 'em!

  •  Study Jesus' Tolerance of Wealth and Money-Changrs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:49:49 PM PDT

  •  It is constitutional (5+ / 0-)

    For the Catholic Church to not allow its priests to be married.  It can't stop a priest from getting married, but it can kick him out for doing so.

    The Supreme Court has recognized a "ministerial exception" to labor laws, giving religious employers the ability to fire certain employees for religious reasons.

  •  There are married, female and gay priests (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, LSophia, skrekk, Calamity Jean

    in the Episcopal Church. Sometimes all of the above at once.

    There's no requirement that anyone have a church wedding, so I don't get what the whole religious objection to marriage equality is. Mr. Scribe's best friend who had his wedding on a trolley car in San Francisco, the couple in our social circle who were married at a local history museum, and my nephew who got married outdoors at the Cliffs Resort in Pismo Beach are just as married as Mr. Scribe and I with our full church wedding -- no difference in our marriage licenses except for the signatures and the county of issue.

    There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

    by Cali Scribe on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:31:02 PM PDT

  •  Um, there's a First Amendment problem (3+ / 0-)

    Sounds so simple -- but not so fast please.

    There have been many many cases holding -- absolutely correctly, IMO -- that the First Amendment protection against government entanglement in religion means that no court, no Congressional law, no state law, no any kind of government regulation, can dictate to a religious faith community either who they have to admit as members, or who they choose as their spiritual leaders.

    So yes, Catholic women can have an ordination ceremony (a few have), and two Catholic priests of whatever gender can marry. But the government cannot force the Catholic Church (or any other religious body) to keep them as priests rather than defrocking them or even excommunicating them.

    Think about it this way: Would you want Justice Scalia, or John Boehner, deciding who could be a UU minister? or an imam or rabbi? Me neither.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site