Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, decried the August 4 decision of a federal judge to overturn California voters’ 2008 initiative that protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” Cardinal George said. “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
Read it all.
Read it all.
Is there more? This is not a link…
Thanks,
Intercessor
Since when have federal judges had the authority to override the will of California’s voters? When were they given the authority to enact federal or state law? This judge’s decision has the effect of creating law! I’m no attorney, but I find nothing in the Constitution which gives him this authority.
The role of the judiciary has always been to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Hence we have cases like Brown vs the Board of Education. How that reality has not sunk in for some is a mystery to me. Would they then defend the right of the majority if they for example decided to not allow women to vote? Or allow only property owners to vote? That’s how our system functions. I’m no attorney either but i did take civics in high school.
Deaconmark,
You are quite right in your assessment. A federal judge can override a state constitutional clause if he or she determines that it violates federal law or the U.S. constitution.
What say you if Congress and the states passed an amendment to the U.S. constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?
These are irresolvalbe issues, because the constitution itself is a flawed document. The Declaration of Independence clearly delineated the principles on which a civil society ought to be based- principles that posit a Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman world view. The Constitution is like the Wizard of Oz; it has worked in spite of itself. The dechristianization of western society continues. In the near future, only naked power will maintain order and direction. Welcome to the Dark Ages. Christians prepare to build your monasteries.
Boniface I think you’re prescient. I’m plodding through “The Atheist Delusions” wherein the author posits among other things that today’s secular pursuit of freedom means no restrictions, prohibitions or inhibitions may be imposed upon our individual right to choose. He argues that such an attitude finds it’s ultimate expression in nihilism. At least that was my understanding.
This decision was made by a federal district court judge reputed himself to be a homosexual. His decision will be appealed to and likely sustained by the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court and finally appealed to the Supreme Court where it will likely be overturned by a 5 to 4 decision. The argument that homosexual marriage is a civil right won’t hold water with the four conservatives justice and one centrist justice [Kennedy].
Roman,
I’ll check out the Atheist Delusion, sounds interesting. Ideas have consequences by Richard Weaver is also a good work trying to tackle the unraveling of Western (Christian) Civilization.
Pax
Many supporters of gay/lesbian rights also seem to be of ‘the same camp and ilk’ as those who deny God’s Hand in Creation, that is they strongly support Darwinism and only Darwinism as the cause of life on Earth, particularly human life
And since Darwinists seem to believe that life forms that survive or “evolve” are those with the greatest reproduction potential,
it would be interesting to see how they view the ‘evolutionary potential of those who reject child-giving heterosexuality and embrace child-less homosexuality.
The ruling to put it kindly is a mess. The judge’s reasoning is a perfect example of what happens when somebody becomes seduced by the elites of academia. These elites do not rely on true vigorous debate or on sharp eyed scholarship. They do not seek after the truth but only after opinions that reinforce their world view.
The judge is unaware of just how narrow and self congratulating the disciplines of psychology, sociology and even history have become. Acceptance of GLBT sex is a given and no one who rebels against that view is likely to have their papers or articles published in any peer reviewed journal. This makes it very hard for those who oppose GLBT to gain the credentials certifying them as experts in the courts’ eye.
More alarming to me is the undercurrent (and at times outright) hostility towards religious groups exercising their rights as citizens shown by the judge. I may have been reading too much into it but to me he was stating that any opposition that arises from a religious motive or belief is invalid and has no right to be expressed.
Perhaps I am an old cynic but a legal ruling that depends so much on how a law makes some people feel makes me want to go out and knock icecream cones out of little Billy’s hands. Instead I’ll just start a list of all the laws that make me feel bad.
Silly me. All this time, I thought it was to be the presiding officer of court, an impartial arbiter of justice, acting within the constraints of the law, including binding precedent.
🙄
Tired, that’ll learn you won’t it.
The federal courts have redefined “life” as a constitutional matter. Now they have redefined “marriage.” Wonder what else will be next. My bet is it will be “religion.”
Those who are opposed to homosexual behavior and marriage on biblical and natural law grounds have been and will be severely tested. The militant homosexuals and their liberal supporters occupy the height of Western culture and are determined to ridicule and punish anyone who oppose their secular pieties.
Thank heaven for Kendall Harmon and others who have held the Judeo-Christian line on this issue with firm civility.
Perhaps it’s now time to consider resurrecting the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions.
[blockquote] The role of the judiciary has always been to protect the minority from the will of the majority. [/blockquote]
Like so many heresies or logical fallacies: a little truth mixed with a little omission.
To make it clear: most of the checks and balances in the Constitution were placed to protect the majority from an oppressive minority; you know, the aristocracy and such (or nowadays academic elites). Perhaps your civics course didn’t cover that bit? To be sure, we are not a pure democracy and indeed, protection of minority views was also of concern. But, that is why your comment is so insidious.
The problem is whether any minority gets protection simply because it is a minority. What about those who champion polygamy or adult-teen sexual relations? Completely generalized and subjective terms like “minority” removed from their ontological references leads to logical absurdity. The point, of course, is that there is no ontological basis for homosexual unions or expression in either natural or divine law (which is why the Catholic Church teaches such acts are intrinsically disordered). Hence, no just society can or should condone them.
#16 : “To make it clear….etc.” And you have made it clear to me and reminded me that this is precisely what the writers of the constitution feared, the domination of government by a powerful minority. I had forgotten this entirely. A timely entry,. Larry