The Real Culprit is Our Outlaw Judiciary

886836-001

In a recent issue of Crisis Magazine, Jennifer Roback Morse gave three reasons why religious liberty arguments do not seem to be working for conservatives in their battle to save traditional marriage. First, many people no longer believe in God, and thus simply don’t care much about religious liberty. Second, we are asking people to give up something they value more (sexual freedom) in exchange for something they value less (religious freedom). Third, when we invoke religious freedom in our arguments against same-sex “marriage,” we are focusing on our own hurt feelings and appear to be “whining.” Dr. Morse concludes with a plea for conservatives to focus their attacks on the real culprit in the marriage controversy—the sexual revolution, which has inflicted harm on millions of people in myriad ways.

Along with many conservatives, I certainly share Dr. Morse’s frustration with the way in which the most time-honored institution of Western Civilization is being put to death without even the prospect of a respectful burial, and I agree that the Sexual Revolution is one of its’ underlying causes (as are philosophical and biological materialism, radical skepticism, crony capitalism, New Age “religion,” and a host of other things). But I agree with Matt Bowman in his response to Dr. Morse that dropping the religious liberty argument will harm rather than help the cause of traditional marriage.

First, I think Dr. Morse has greatly underestimated the importance of getting rid of religious liberty itself as an important—perhaps even an ultimate—goal of many same-sex “marriage” advocates. We are way past the point at which we can pretend that same-sex “marriage” activists are merely looking for tolerance and non-discrimination. If homosexuals were merely looking to legitimize certain forms of sexual behavior via matrimony, then surely they would not need (or want) to force Christian florists, photographers or restauranteurs to cater their weddings. But they do seem to want precisely that. And this means that their ultimate goal cannot be merely a right to marry. Rather, it appears to be the very right to force Christians to violate their religious principles that is most coveted by many same-sex “marriage” proponents. We should not forget that the same-sex “marriage” movement is not an isolated phenomenon, but is rather one prong in a much wider attack on Christendom itself.

Second, I think the facts noted in support of Dr. Morse’s recommendation are incomplete. Let’s look more closely at the first two points. The first point, that many people no longer believe in God, is at best only a partial truth. Recent public opinion polls certainly don’t suggest that most Americans are atheists or agnostics. I suspect that many—perhaps most—American elites might be described this way, and if so, that would go a long way toward explaining why so many corporate CEOs, media figures, intellectuals, and celebrities have jumped on the same-sex bandwagon so quickly. It might also help to explain why federal judges have moved with such haste to enshrine gay “marriage” in the Constitution. As I suggested in an article written a few years ago, the courts have been manipulating the Constitution for several decades in order to bring it more into line with the contemporary values of “enlightened elites.”

The second point is closely tied to the first. Whether people value sexual freedom more than religious freedom greatly depends on whether they really are religious, and in what sense. It may be presumed that serious Christians care at least as much about religious liberty as they do about sexual freedom, and most ordinary Americans self-identify as Christians. Moreover, despite what questionable recent polls or Justice Ginsberg say about the readiness of the American public to accept same-sex “marriage,” it is unlikely that we would even be talking about this issue absent the court-induced pressure of the last few years. As Austin Ruse has pointed out in Crisis:

We have won the argument over marriage. We have won 34 statewide elections where traditional marriage was on the ballot. We did this even though the polls showed us losing most of them, perhaps all of them, prior to the vote. We won even in liberal states like California. We won even during Democratic primaries like Missouri. Our opponents persuaded the people in a measly three states to vote with them on faux marriage. We have won the debate, at least for now. We have largely won on religious freedom also. Religious freedom is the law of the land federally and in 32 states. A look at recent polls shows that even on this seemingly divisive issue, we have still convinced a majority of Americans that the Christian baker should not be forced to serve a faux marriage that violates his religious freedom. Yet, our votes are overturned by a combination of black-robed elites, craven corporations who have turned on their customers, the mainstream media, and cowardly GOP politicians.

John C. Eastman adds to this the cumulative totals from 39 statewide elections in 35 different states: “51,483,777 votes in favor of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage, versus 33,015,412 votes in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s a vote margin of 60.93 percent to 39.07 percent, a landslide in American politics.”

The fact is, conservatives are losing the battle over traditional marriage and religious liberty for one simple reason: judicial supremacy. The craven corporations, the mainstream media and the cowardly politicians mentioned in Ruse’s quotation have all followed the black-robed elites—not the other way round. For the last several decades, we have stood by and watched as the federal courts appropriated and manipulated the Constitution in such a way as to make it serve the interests of elite public opinion. In 1958, we watched as the Supreme Court declared itself (for the first time) the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. In 1962 and 1963, we watched as the Court declared public school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading unconstitutional. In 1965, we watched as the Court fabricated an extra-constitutional “right to privacy,” and in 1973 as it included abortion in that right. We watched in 1992 as the Court, while upholding its own fabricated constitutional right to abortion, arrogantly declared that the American people must earn their legitimacy as “a nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law” by recognizing that the Court “speaks before all others for their constitutional ideals.”

We watched in 1993 as the Court ruled that governments need not demonstrate a “compelling interest” when restricting the free exercise of religion, and in 1997 as the Court overturned a provision in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a provision the purpose of which was to restore that “compelling interest” standard in free exercise cases. At the same time, the Court for the first time explicitly denied the authority of the people’s representatives in Congress to interpret the Constitution with any conclusive effect. We watched in 2000 as the Court outlawed school prayer at high school football games. We watched in 2003 as the Court fabricated a constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy—and, by implication, a host of other things. In 2013, we watched as the Court declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Finally, we have watched as a succession of federal courts have declared same-sex “marriage” bans in several states unconstitutional. Why is anyone surprised?

The enlightened elites have decided that it is illiberal and unprogressive to hurt the feelings of same-sex couples who want to marry and force Christians to cater their weddings, and the bakers and candlestick makers must now follow along quietly. We have allowed judicial interpretations of the Constitution to overpower the political process in the most vital areas of life. So long as we continue down this road, Anthony Esolen’s declaration in Crisis Magazine that “Democracy is Dead” will continue to be apropos. However, it should be remembered that, although there are cultural requisites for a healthy democracy (as Dr. Esolen’s article aptly points out), democracy is nonetheless a political form. So might one yet hope that it can be restored?

The first step in this restoration is the simple realization that the Constitution does not authorize judicial supremacy—the doctrine that the Supreme Court is the exclusive, ultimate and final authority on all constitutional issues. The Constitution authorizes judicial review only in a limited range of cases, and this power extends to none of the cases mentioned above in this essay.  Nor is judicial supremacy authorized by early Supreme Court decisions, despite the fictitious claims of progressives and others who support an activist judiciary. To put the point bluntly: We need to stop trying to convince federal judges that same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea. They won’t be convinced because federal judges represent enlightened elite opinion and the enlightened elites have already decided that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Rather, we must start trying to convince the American people that federal judges never had the constitutional authority to decide whether same-sex “marriage” is a bad idea in the first place. Since all such decisions are without constitutional authority and thus outside the law, it follows that the judges who make them are outlaws. We must stop being intimidated by the black robes and call them to account.

Once it has been determined that the national judiciary has overstepped its’ constitutional limits, as it did a little more than a century-and-a-half ago in the Dred Scott case (1856), it is a short step to the approach taken by Abraham Lincoln in his response to that decision: disrespect and disavowal of its binding effect on any save the parties to specific lawsuits. And maybe we shouldn’t respect such decisions even as to the parties to specific lawsuits, because our situation is worse than Lincoln’s in at least one respect. Whereas Lincoln’s problem was one specific decision (albeit with obviously momentous consequences), our problem is with a long train of decisions by an entire branch of the national government that has been allowed to run amok for several decades, deadening our democracy by lulling large segments of the population into the false belief that the Constitution is none of the people’s business.

Even worse, Congress itself has been deadened. In the late-1990s, I had the experience of testifying at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. The subject of the hearing was Congress’s role in constitutional interpretation, and its’ impetus was the Supreme Court’s decision in Boerne v. Flores (1997), which declared a provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 unconstitutional (see above). It became abundantly clear during the course of the hearing, much to my astonishment at the time, that many of the representatives on the committee did not really believe that Congress had any role at all in constitutional interpretation. People on both sides of the aisle and issue simply had difficulty getting their minds around the idea that the Supreme Court might not have final, exclusive interpretive authority in all constitutional matters. So thoroughly have we been brought under the spell of the courts that even our elected representatives do not appear to believe they have the competence or authority to deal with constitutional issues.

Do we really believe that a handful of lawyers are best fit to solve our most fundamental constitutional problems? Actually, not even a “handful,” since on the marriage issue, which will probably be decided soon by a 5-4 vote on the Supreme Court, it will likely be one lawyer who decides the issue for the whole country. It is “We the People” who made the Constitution, and “We the People” who must preserve it against all who would attempt to capture and manipulate its words and phrases to serve their own private ends. It is understandable that same-sex couples would desire the legitimacy provided by the institution of marriage. But this desire is a private good that can be truly legitimized only if the American people as a whole freely decide to make it a public good. There is even more at stake in this controversy than the institution of marriage and religious freedom. Also at stake is the American democratic republic and its’ constitutional foundation.

Robert Lowry Clinton

By

Robert Lowry Clinton is Professor and Chair Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. He is the author of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review and God and Man in the Law: The Foundations of Anglo-American Constitutionalism, as well as numerous academic articles and book chapters. In addition to scholarly journals, Dr. Clinton has appeared in numerous popular periodicals such as First Things, National Review Online, Public Discourse, and New Oxford Review.

  • James

    I think you’re overlooking the obvious. There are fortunes to be made by the Divorce Regime in enforcing unilateral divorce on unwilling participants. Prof Stephen Baskerville has studied the subject in detail and his research is impeccable. A rule of thumb: the regime usually rewards the party that brings them the business ie. the treacherous, the adulterous, the dissatisfied, etc, be they husband or wife. In secret courts without juries, anything goes.

    • publiusnj

      This is very perceptive analysis. In the end, all the fancy mental legerdemain about Freedom and civil rights and respect for sexual “minorities” reduces down to that ancient question: “cui bono?” and its modern-day expressions, political contributions and business opportunity.

    • Absolutely true. Take something totally on-controversial like drunk driving. No rational person defends it, but we based the offense on an arbitrary limit, rather than demonstrated impairment and there’s all sorts of loopholes that the insiders exploit and profit from. Some years ago in my hometown a state police officer was picked up for suspicion of DUI. Knowing that breathalyzer can be disputed by a blood test, and one could insist on having their personal physician draw the blood, she asserted that right and in the interim, her BAC slipped below the .08 limit.

  • lifeknight

    I am recalling the “judicial murder” of Terri Schindler Schiavo. She was killed by the courts and the people were absolutely powerless. As history is rewritten by the liberal media, many will remember the endless court hearings and the decisions that condemned an innocent person to death.

    • mollysdad

      The people were powerless only because no one was prepared to enter Terry’s room and restrain (and if necessary shoot) the police officer who was enforcing the starvation order.

      • The sad reality is many “people” wanted her gone, because she was a reminder of their own potential infirmity and morbidity.

        • lifeknight

          So true. Her death contributed to massive agenda to enforce euthanasia and the physician assisted deaths we are seeing now. Obamacare will finish the deal. Watch for POLST–coming to a hospital near you……at the hands of your trusted physician.

          • It’s funny, but I’ve already noticed changes. Some are subtle. The Nurse Practitioners group is running radio ads saying how you are more likely to see a NP as your primary care provider in the future. The ads speak of the history of the profession, the required training- all true, but avoiding the one obvious difference between an NP and an MD/DO: medical school. In other words, qualitative rationing.

            • lifeknight

              You ain’t seen nothin yet! To those who voted for the most proabortion president in history, the worm has turned. Anyone over 70 will have prove they are not a drag on society. Healthcare “ethics” panels will be making decisions very soon (if not already.)
              I find most NPs are poorly trained (some exclusively online programs) and have to be watched carefully in a clinical setting.

              • My coworker’s wife is an NP. Her training included obtaining a Master’s Degree, and engaging in a series of clinical rotations. My wife is an RN with a boutique certification. I’ve noticed that while my wife makes a sharp distinction between the nursing and medical professions, my coworker no longer does. He seems to think that his wife’s training is an equivalent to medical school-and that tells me what the gig is under Obamanocare.

      • lifeknight

        Oh there were plenty of people who would have tried to get her out, but there was a SWAT team on a roof next door that would have opened fire. It would have been a blood bath. It was not a one police officer deal.

  • rsnow

    I disagree. It is difficult to grasp, but we live in a totalitarian society, where the cultural and political elites control all the main institutions. The battle over marriage was lost before it even began, because it effectively cast as a civil rights issue. The battle over legalized murder was effectively lost when Chief Justice Roberts at his hearing assured the partisans of murder that Roe vs Wade was settled law. The society signed its own death warrant when it opted for easy divorces and embraced the sexual revolution. The cultural, social, and political consequences are probably irreversible. As in the Soviet Union after the revolution and civil war in 1917-1921, where private religious freedom was tolerated to a degree, that is what is happening here. Totalitarianism will tolerate no rivals when it comes to ideology and religion. My PhD in Modern European history was primarily the study of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I know a totalitarian movement and system when I see it.

    • Watosh

      Very well stated. I have said much the same thing in the past, and have duly verbally pilloried for so stating. Our totalitarian state though has no need to resort to the bludgeon to keep the populace in line as they have discovered that by controlling what people think via the media is more effective than using the bludgeon. It is what happens when Catholic teaching is ignored, and replaced by secular ideals.

      • You are pilloried because you make the inane claim that the present state of affairs resembles the Republic as founded and is the natural and planned outgrowth of some conspiracy that occured because of the absence of some overt Catholicity.

        The reality is that despite their religious affiliations, the framers incorporated an instuitutional memory that understood, in an implicit wat libido dominandi and subsidiarity. I’d rather have dinner with any of them than any contemporary Catholic politician, even if it was in their time, when daily bathing and deodorant were unknowns.

        The present state of affairs is in fact, often the result of so-called Catholic politicians. A crime scene invesigator would find the fingerprints of the Kennedys, (the Hyannisport ones and the SCOTUS one, the Caseys, the Cuomos, Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi and a myriad of others.)

        • Countryman

          You left out Pelosi and Biden to name a few.

          • Thanks-how could I?
            Oh yeah, Biden is an embarrasing product of Scranton, and Pelosi is like putting lipstick on a….

          • Asmondius

            At least they didn’t march along with the homosexual banner at the New York City Saint Patrick’s Day parade.

        • Watosh

          I thought you would be upset with vinnie below who used the word “progressive” in a sense that you disapprove of. You missed the chance to correct vinnie. More and more people will misuse the word ‘progressive’ if you don’t put them straight.

          And did you know that many lines in our Constitution were lifted directly from the free-mason’s Anderson Constitution in their exercise of institutional memory, which of course could be expected because many were free-masons. Well they still probably would make good dinner partners for some I guess.

          But like Dr. Pangloss was wont to say, our Constitution is the best of all Constitutions, and anyone who doubts that needs to refresh their Parson Weeks American History.

          Of course the Catholic politicians you identified deserve censure, but treating them as Judas goats is not going to correct the basic problem.

          • Actually, there were provisions were “lifted directly” from the Magna Carta-drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1215, you know when the ABC would still be Catholic for another three centuries.

            Eccentric old men have a certain charm. When they indulge their eccentricities to the point of lunacy, they need to be medicated.

            • Watosh

              Another document of interest is one dealing with the Psychological characteristics of a troll. These studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavelianism. The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the “dark triad of personality” should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears “to be an internet manifestation of everyday sadism.” Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice internet users are routinely admonished, “So not feed the trolls!”

              I can’t argue with that.

              • Is that supposed to be introspective?

        • Paddy

          Gov. O”Malley is another pro-abortion Catholic, whom Wuerl will applaud as he tears down the foundational principles of Western thought.

          • The list is endless…

            • Paddy

              True, they know where the votes are and will prostitute themselves to get them. That’s why they’re called Democrats.

              • The other side does nothing…

    • NDaniels

      We can know through both Faith and reason, that a human person can only conceive a human person; a son or daughter.

    • EB

      Some of the parallels (what we’re starting to see legally, politically, and in terms of media deception) are truly frightening. But as far as I can tell, the average person that lives next door and identifies as LBGT or the average “straight” supporter of their unions doesn’t really intend any totalitarianism and doesn’t see how their solutions to these issues may be participating in a trend towards totalitarianism. They sincerely believe the idea that their situation is just like racial discrimination issues, and so believe forcing compliance is ok just like you force a restaurant to serve black people.
      Political and cultural elites have always controlled institutions, haven’t they? But I think it’s a matter of what the character or ideology of those elites is.

    • Jacqueleen

      Man is not greater or more powerful than our Creator, the designer of the Universe, the author of life! I am putting my money on God, who sees, hears and knows all! He is coming back with a vengeance to weed out the goats from the sheep. Those who refuse to honor Him and beg for His Mercy will receive His JUSTICE. All of the King Midas’ in the world will not be able to count their gold and silver coins in the fires of Hades! The end is very near, the choice is ours!

      • St JD George

        The time of my coming you do not know. Do not worry yourself. A friend of mine told me that.

        • Jacqueleen

          We agree but one HAS TO BE READY! SPREAD THE WORD. My friend told me that.

          • St JD George

            Amen to that.

    • Michael S.

      Could you list the ten most informative books that you would suggest to read on modern European history that would help us grasp your insights being that you are a Phd. Thanks in advance. Per chance, would the Gulag Archipelago be one?
      God bless

      • rsnow

        yes however, I gave up academic life over 40 years ago and I actually did not teach history but taught the epistemology and methodology of social scientific inquiry as well as getting a seminary education in an Episcopal and Russian Orthodox Seminary. I became a Catholic in 1985.

        Gulag is one, Darkness at Noon, The Nazi Seizure of Power in a Single Town, Behmoth, The War Against the Jews, A Russian Civil War Dairy by Babine, Pipes, The Russian Revolution, A Study in Survival, The Church in Russia 1927-1943, Patriarchs and Prophets: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church Today (1970) Especially for a broad understanding works by Eric Voegelin: New Science of Politics and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. Of course Marx’s German Ideology and Many of Lenin’s collected works which are available in English. Voegelin understands the character of modern European secular thought as essentially Gnostic thinking, which is true of the radical secularists who have successfully imposed a new moral order on the country, through the legitimate and existing institutions. I would also suggest reading Pope Paul VI’s November 1972 audience on the devil, as well as many of Pope Francis’s comments about the devil.

    • Paddy

      Just as it excommunicated any member of the Nazi Party, the remnants of the Catholic Church in America need to excommunicate registered members of the corrupt Marxist Democratic Party Machine….starting with the immoral Catholic judges.

  • Vinny

    Is it possible to renew the Declaration of Independence within a decayed country or do we need to found a new country? “…and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    • St JD George

      Perhaps you were channeling your inner Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

  • Don

    I’m a lawyer and am frequently invited to speak as the local state law college. The professors at this institution, like most everywhere in the US, are liberal/progressive in their outlook. Over the years, this outlook has expanded to incorporate an perceptively anti-Christian element. Many, if not most of the students, are nominally Christian and have a poor understanding of their faith. Being “educated” by professors who are indifferent or hostile to that faith, it is easy to see how each crop of new lawyers, and ultimately judges, view religious freedom as a disposable constitutional right. If we can change America’s colleges, we can change the world. If we cannot accomplish that, the courts will not provide a safe harbor to faith.

    • Vinny

      Progressive knew how to change the world – get into teaching and law.

      • EB

        And media. So the new media is where, today, conservatives/traditional-minded people are able to get some truths out that the mainstream media/education system do not wish to be heard…

    • Sam Weatherford

      I agree Don, but I think we need to drive it even further back to the catechesis of our children by a loving and devout mother and father obedient to sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium. In that sense our children are our future and by them the Lord will see to our countries healthy survival or it’s ultimate demise. Deus Vult.

      • Don

        Agreed!

      • HartPonder

        Residuum revertetur!

        • Sam Weatherford

          Amen brother, amen! I pray for the courage of my conviction’s by God’s Grace.

    • EB

      It seems to me that for the sake of fitting into the culture and making sure our children have “careers,” we have sold our children down the river. And it shows now all around us. They fall away from the Faith – is it any wonder, when we have sent them to basically be indoctrinated in a secular materialist mindset? And the schools charge you an arm and a leg for the privilege!

      • If colleges didn’t have their “non-profit” status, I’d be shorting their stock and be retired.

    • Has it ever occurred to you that law school is merely an indoctrination center and that we have no better jurisprudence now, then when lawyers were trained by “reading the law” and doing useful things like filing wills, estates and liens, rather than having their intellectual pride stroked and being treated as aspiring philosopher kings for three years?

  • LarryCicero

    Lincoln, in a reflection on Proverbs 25:11, said that the frame( silver linings being the Constitution and Union) was made for the picture (the golden apples being the Declaration) not the picture for the frame. He understood that the Constitution was meant to preserve those inalienable rights that come from “our Creator,” that those Natural Rights are what the country was founded upon, not the Constitution, and that our greatest document is the Declaration. The country was not founded on the Constitution. deToqueville observed that America’s greatness was found in her churches. Would he make that same observation today? I would suggest not. As the author repeatedly stated, as the court made decisions, “We watched.” The failure is in the pulpits and pews, in the people that accept those decisions without argument, accept the Constitution as the highest authority, and elect leaders lacking moral conviction.

    • LarryCicero

      In 1954 we watched as Congress passed the Johnson Amendment, instructing churches to keep their noses out of politics or lose their tax exempt status. The Church has not challeged this law, and Freedom Pulpit Day goes unnoticed by Catholics, even though Pope Benedict years ago encouraged people to speak up for religious freedom when he visited the U.S. and said in DC, “God BLESS America” as opposed to Rev. Wright’s “G.D. America.”

  • Thanks to Judicial Supremacy the Constitution is dead. But Judicial Supremacy is enshrined in the Constitution and has been there since the beginning. Pope Leo XIII was right. American worship of the Constitution is idolatry.

    • Bovine Excrement. Judicial Supremacy has its roots in Marbury v. Madison.

      • Marbury Lost. Article III prevailed. Judicial review had been used previously in Hylton v. United States, in 1796, to prove the constitutionality of Article I laws. Article III Clause 2 Section 2 gives them this power. The flaw is in the original Constitution, and will take either a Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Replacement to correct.

        • Marbury didn’t lose-he was disenfrancised. You can’t lose if you are determined not even to a right to assert a claim. The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review.

          The Judiciary knows this power exists only on the thin read of aquiesing custom and in a blizzard of self-serving law review articles.

          That’s why a couple of years ago, one of the judges demanded Eric Holder produce a memo affirming the power of judicial review, when his foolish underling considered that it might not exist in oral arguments.

          They know they can’t even allow the academic contemplation of the illegitimacy of their arrogation of power.

          It’s also why the attorney general personally met the deadline with a three-page, single-spaced letter– following the specific instructions of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was hearing a challenge to the health care law.

          http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2012/04/us/doj.letter.pdf

  • St JD George

    It would seem as if only Jesus, and maybe the Pope, can live in this world today totally unafraid of living one’s faith to the fullest. I guess we are not so unlike the disciples during and after the resurrection, denying him three times before sunrise, hiding in the upper room, doubting it was all real until we see his wounds with our own eyes. Oh, to be filled with the Holy Spirit as they were after his Ascension into Heaven. Without that zeal rest assured the church will continue to morph into its role as a regulated NGO whose message is monitored and managed, whose infrastructure is used to facilitate secular redistribution goals, whose freedom is granted to gather weekly but barred from sharing the good news bringing hope to others outside its sanctuary walls, who someday soon will be bludgeoned to administer services for SSM as an immoral “civil” right. Seems like we have two choices, either accept that the fate of God’s diminishing role in society is predetermined and out of our hands, i.e. his will that will be done, or we recognize that there is a problem and start becoming the agents of change that we believe he wants us to be. Are saints only relics of the past, or do they walk among us today.

    • mortimer zilch

      I think of St. Basil and St. Benedict faced with the dark days of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, and deciding to do something about it. It seems WE DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. – Actually I think I do…by a very gracious personal revelation. And that is to Incorporate the Vestibule of the Church as a Lay Catholic Ministry…with a Lay Monastic Order as its ministers. This Corporation will house Catholic Families, and associates, and operate the Vestibules as Evangelization centers with diocesan approval. Inquiries? Please contact me at mortimerzilch@gmail.com ty.

  • BillinJax

    We “debate” the value of everything that is holy or sacred these days and at the same time completely ignore the reality that all of this is a “distraction” from what is obvious when we step back as informed and united people of God under the leadership of Christ who told us we would be subject to all manner of persecution when we speak the Truth to the world around us. This is nothing less than THE spiritual warfare on the part of the father of lies against Christianity. In this WAR we, as individuals, have to use EVERY weapon truth provides for us. Each person of faith is given their own portion of knowledge and gifts with which to enter the fray, praise God. We do not have nor should we chose the liberty to question each other’s ammunition going to battle. All of it has the sting of TRUTH and that is all that’s necessary. Onward Christian soldiers! “As he died to make man holy let us die to make man free!” Have you forgotten? Close ranks not mouths.

  • Countryman

    Judges and in particular the Supreme Court have done more damage to this country than any external force ever could have hoped to. We have a legal system not a justice system. “justice” is a commodity that is bought, sold and traded by those with wealth and influence in our courts today. If you have enough money and friends in the right places you can get away with anything. Our system of justice should be a remedy to our societies problems not the cause it has become. Supreme Court justices have proven themselves chameleons time and time again. They say what ever it takes to get in and them do as they please once there. Free to inflict as much damage as they please until God sends them to where they deserve. No unelected lifetime judge should have the power to over rule the will of a free people.

    • It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare
      that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

      • mollysdad

        If it were possible for two persons to marry regardless of gender, then there could be no justification for the institution of marriage to exist.

        This for two reasons. The first is that married couples enjoy legal privileges not available to persons in group units that do not fit the legal definition of marriage. This in itself is discriminatory, assuming that there is no particular public interest in the begetting and raising of children.

        The second reason drops the assumption about children. Only the fact that children come only from the union of a man and a a woman justifies the existence of marriage. This is what makes marriage between a man and a woman different from a marriage between sodomites. To treat them equally when they are in fact different is itself a form of unjust discrimination.

        • If you’re argument was relevant, we would prohibit marriage by elderly and infertile couples, as well as couples who have no desire to have children.

          And if you believe that marriage provides a more stable home environment for the raising of children, why would you deny Gay couples with adopted children the option to marry?

          • mollysdad

            Correction – If my second argument was relevant.

            Let’s run with my first. There is no particular public interest in begetting and raising children. Therefore there is no justification for marriage even to exist.

            The reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed access to children, let alone to adopt them, is that they’re weirdos and perverts.

            • Calling law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples “weirdos and perverts” isn’t going to do your own cause much good.

              • mollysdad

                Even the Mob pay their taxes. You see, the right to religious freedom includes the right of Christians to talk down to sodomites, tell them that their lifestyle is evil and depraved and impress on them that this isn’t a debate, it’s a lecture.

                We’re right, you’re wrong and the Pope’s infallible.

                • This is true. Popes are always infallible. Alexander VI, Benedict IX, and John XII come to mind …

              • Hap Stone

                If homosexuals were merely looking to legitimize certain forms of sexual behavior via matrimony, then surely they would not need (or want) to force Christian florists, photographers or restauranteurs to cater their weddings. But they do seem to want precisely that. And this means that their ultimate goal cannot be merely a right to marry.
                Makes sense ..no?

                • A business is not a church. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

                  Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Prior to Loving v. Virginia such an argument was used by a JUDGE in favor of bans on interracial marriage:

                  “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

                  Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple’s wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

                  If the answer to these questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?

                  • Asmondius

                    False premise – homosexuality is largely a behavior, it is not a race or a creed.

                  • Hap Stone

                    Using your own argument – then what purpose is there in a sodomites purposely soliciting any business for the purpose demanding that they be “served” that in most classifications is called entrapment … and really no sodomite has a yet been denied service (with the exception of some Muslims shops) – only their “invite” to participate in the “ceremony” had been refused – far far different than service being denied – you can see better farce comedy on TV – well maybe not actually.
                    .
                    To get back to the point: FORCING Christian florists, photographers or restaurateurs to cater their weddings. But they do seem to want precisely that. And this means that their ultimate goal cannot be merely a right to marry.

                  • A business owner is not a slave just because you have a fistful of bills.

                  • Chairm

                    Your invocation of mixing and seperating by grouip identity does place your gay emphasis in a rather dark context. Marriage integrates by sex (man and woman), by sexual attraction (male attraction and female attraction), and is neutral on group identity. But the SSM type of relationship is segregative in the very ways in which marriage is integrative.

                    If gay is a race-like group identity, on par with so-called racial groupings, then, SSM would be analogous with “racially pure” in contrast with marriage as “interracial”. Odd how you would revive a racist-like view of marriage law while trying to use the Loving case which repudiated the supremacy of white identity politics. The SSM side argues for the supremacy of gay identity politics to impose SSM and to enforce its racist-like consequences.

            • “There is no particular public interest in begetting and raising children.”
              Yeah, that’s what Japan thought too.

          • Chairm

            The man-woman requirement does not deny a gay person from forming the marital relationship — the type of relationship that is procreative in kind and commonly procreative in outcome. It is also, first, unitive in kind as per the sexual basis of the man-woman requirement.

            Do you know what that sexual basis is? Perhaps you know it indirectly via the pro-SSM complaint against the man-woman requirement.

      • Don

        Chuck, you are correct that the job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution but of course, the rub is always, what does the Constitution really mean and require? The Constitution itself was the product of Natural Law. Today Natural Law is considered a religious vestige and is largely ignored. But interpretation of the Constitution within the light of Natural Law and placed in its historical context, “marriage” can only be between a man and a woman. Indeed, in the first 200 years of this nation, no court found a Constitutional protection for same-sex marriages. The sudden change in position on this issue can, therefore, be viewed as judicial activism. Moreover, the judicial imposition of penalties for those who decline to participate by provided cakes or photos of same-sex weddings – something their religion requires them to do – is the worst kind of activism. And I would note that those individuals are typically targeted by the couple to make a point. That too is activism designed to defeat Christian beliefs.

        • “In the first 200 years of this nation, no court found a Constitutional protection for same-sex marriages.”

          That’s because the word “marriage” doesn’t occur in the Constitution. Technically there is no right for ANY couple, Gay or Straight, to get married as far as the federal government is concerned. It’s also because the whole concept of marriage equality wasn’t an issue until the advent of the modern Gay right movement.

          However, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage, Justice Earl Warren wrote for the unanimous court decision that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

          • Don

            I didn’t write that there was a “right” to marry under federal law – I wrote there was “no constitutional protection” for same-sex marriages. This newly discovered Constitutional protection is what makes what the courts are doing “activism.” From a legal perspective, you could change the Constitution to provide that protection but that isn’t what is being done. At least the will of the people, for good or for bad, would be respected. What is instead being done is judicial force to impose upon people of faith a prescribed accommodation for persons whose “actions” they cannot endorse.
            With regard to Loving v. Virginia, the case involved a man and a woman – again the product of Natural Law. You cannot accept gay marriage unless you reject Natural Law. And if you reject Natural Law, then there are no true inalienable rights . . . simply the whim of the day. Which takes us back to judicial activism.

            • “I didn’t write that there was a “right” to marry under federal law – I wrote there was “no constitutional protection” for same-sex marriages.”

              And as I have written, there is no constitutional protection for opposite-sex marriages, either. The word “marriage” is not defined by the Constitution.

              There continue to be calls for a “Federal Marriage Amendment” that would define marriage as a purely heterosexual institution. I think Ted Cruz is one of the supporters of such an amendment. It remains to be seen if such an amendment, if ratified, would declare all prior marriages by Gay couples to be null and void.

              • Don

                I’m sincerely curious Chuck, (I’m not asking this to be rude or offensive) but this is a Catholic website: (1) Are you Catholic? and, if so; (2) How do you square biblical condemnation of homosexual actions with your professed faith? Educate me on your perspective.

                • He never answers a direct question. He should be a political press secretary.

              • Chairm

                None of the proposed federal marriage amendments wouild define marriage by sexual orientation. You seem to be misreading something into it.

          • Chris Cloutier

            “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

            That is, between a man and a woman. As defined by God and passed down through the ages. Not to be defined by a bunch of elitist, black robed, harridans.

          • Asmondius

            Specious – he was of course referring to male and female, as that case involved.

          • Justice Earl Warren wrote for the unanimous court decision that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

            The case at hand and that phrase were issues of invidious racial discrimination, not the absence of valid elements.

            You want to get married? Find a woman that will have you.

            Given that homosexuals were never subject to the “fugitive gay act”, were treated as property, disallowed suffrage or counted as 3/5 of a person, your misappropriation of Civil Rights issues is insulting and obnoxious.

          • Chairm

            You dropped the part that makes marriage fundamental to society.

            Did you bring up interracial marriage so as to invoke a constitutional analogy with “gay marriage”? Please explain.

      • Countryman

        Chuck, Just because you want to redefine marriage doesn’t mean the rest of us have to accept it. I don’t care what you choose to do with your life. You have just as much right to make wrong decisions as right ones. Just because you think it is right doesn’t make it so. Judges prove every day that they can’t be objective as they should be. Just because some judge says it’s so doesn’t make it right either. Most gays I know accept that our opinions and values are different. We have a mutual respect that we are both entitled to that. It is only those like you that can’t accept a different view point and try to make everyone accept your beliefs. I will pray for your conversion.

      • Hap Stone

        Actually DOMA was the will of people … and who can forget both Obama, Clinton and a cadre of other Democrats who heart warmingly and with feigned genuinity and sincerity, looked into the cameras and said to the American people : “I believe in Traditional Marriage” ….” almost to a man and woman …. much like the homosexual priests vowed celibacy – well except for little boys …. quite similar actually – no great evolutionary epiphany really…. just “closeted agenda” … silly us all we had to do was look at the shenanigans of Barney Franks ” pleasure apartment” and the age of those being imported by the democrats for the democrats ….

  • GG

    It seems the law is only as good as the people who interpret it. If we have moral misfits in black robes interpreting the law as they have so far then we get tyranny. We need more moral judges.

  • Charles Putter

    Was it not Caiaphas who advised the Jewish authorities that it was better that one man, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, die for all the people………… Serving the “greater good” is now a time-honoured principle. The libertarian cry is: Christ is dead, let’s kill His Church too.

    • St JD George

      Actually, I believe that quote is attributed to Satan.

      • Never let facts get it the way of a good rant.

    • Did I miss something? Did all those hard left Democrats suddenly be revealed as crypto-libertarians? Can’t wait for Obama’s proposal to dismantle the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

      • Hard left Democrats have been crypto-libertarians since the Democratic Convention of 1968. Where have you been? The entire argument for the sexual revolution is based on individual liberty.

        • To the extent that the herd of cats known as libertarians has been anywhere, until recently they were trying to roll back the federal government and their big libertine, not liberty, position was marijuana legalization.

          I remember reading something about 15 years ago that the left was targeting libertarians to make them less amenable to limited government positions-and they’ve largely been successful.

          Now, may hardcore libertarians take the illogical position that liberty is advanced by having the state impose gay marriage on people who reject it and that liberty is being unable to limit entrants over national borders.

          Its so weird to see them celebrating dope in Colorado while there’s still an IRS. Oh well, they’ve always led with their chin.

        • Amatorem Veritatis

          Just so we retain some sense of categorical consistency in our labels, libertarians are simply greedy libertines. Or if you are feeling very generous, libertines who have received some level of personal revelation regarding the natural law principles of free markets and economics. Unfortunately, they seem to be oblivious to natural law as relates to the moral questions intrinsic to issues such as drug use, various types of disordered sexuality including our depravity du jour, and the convergence of personal self defense as national security policy.

          Libertarians generally vote with conservatives (who are overwhelmingly Catholic & christian), and therefore Republican (Hobson’s choice unfortunately), because they value their money, which is a tangible asset more than their love of libertine behavior, which is merely a principle. Simple calculus. On the other hand, the Democrat party has become the 21st century fulfillment of the American Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, which was (and is) fascist, corporatist, quasi-socialist and therefore Marxist at its core. The Democrat party has never been libertarian, even going back as far as Jefferson.

          • Fascism and Marxism is what happens when free market cronies learn that they can buy the government they desire. That in combination with sexual libertine attitudes is what makes the Democrats crypto-libertarian. The Democratic government is now small enough to be purchased outright be the market oligarchy, who then become dictators. Which is exactly what we are seeing, bribed judges using contraception, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, and homosexuality to eliminate the unprofitable portion of the population.

  • Five years from now, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

    • GG

      You mean people devoid of conscience and hedonists.

      • No, I mean people who believe that getting married is preferable to just shacking up together.

        • GG

          Marriage, by definition, has to involve a male and female.

          • By whose definition?

            • St JD George

              God’s natural law, the one enshrined in your soul.

              • It’s not the job of government to uphold your personal concept of “God’s Natural Law,” but rather to uphold the Constitution. The United States is not a theocracy, yet.

                • St JD George

                  It’s not a personal concept, just a personal relationship.

                  • GOOD FOR YOU! I’m glad you take comfort in your “personal relationship” with God. But it’s still irrelevant for the purpose of public policy.

                    • St JD George

                      Believe it or not, it’s good for you … too. I wish you no malice, I wish for you to be at peace, for eternity.

                    • Cool. Does that mean we get to dispense with those annoying injunctions against homicide because they are enshrined in the Decalogue?

                • It’s not the job of government to uphold your personal concept of “Chuck’s Natural Law,” but rather to uphold the Constitution. The United States is not a misotheocracy, yet.

            • GG

              Any non corrupt person who uses right reason.

            • By every culture, custom and law that ever existed until militant neomanics and statists decided that the state has the power not recognize order, but to impose it.

              Tell me something Chuck. If your life is so satisfying why do you need to troll this board to engage in these futile arguments.

              Do you go to Islamic websites to share your views with Muslims, Chuck? Or do you just go where you’ll be disputed, rather than defenestrated?

              • St JD George

                I think it’s deeper than that, I believe he is here because internally and subconsciously he wants to be in unity with the Holy Spirit.

                • You know nothing about me. But if you are ever in Charleston, West Virginia, look me up, and I’ll treat you to lunch.

                  • St JD George

                    I know you are a child of God Chuck, we have that in common. Beyond that I only know what you have been willing to share. I know man’s nature, and I know where true peace comes from. I want that for you.

                  • St JD George

                    Nice town there on the river(s). You have a bunch of my “big friends” there, over at McLaughlin. I feel certain you see and hear them from time to time – sound sound of freedom. I have some old family roots (deceased) in a small town SE not too far from there.

              • DEAR DE-173:

                If the comment section is just for people who are preaching to the choir, let me know.

                • Objectivetruth

                  YIKES!!! They’re at it again, Chuck! ISIS/Muslims playing gravity games with your “gay” pals from ten story buildings! Quite efficient, yet evil….if the “gay” guy survives the fall, the crowd below kicks him to death.

                  What’s your move, Chuck? What do you plan on doing about this? Is there a Mosque near by where you can go scream at the imam?

                  Or are you just a coward?:

                  http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/03/05/dnt-damon-isis-gay-executions.cnn

                • You didn’t answer the question, Chuck.

                  “Do you go to Islamic websites to share your views with Muslims, Chuck? Or do you just go where you’ll be disputed, rather than defenestrated?”

                  Please don’t call me “dear”. It’s insincere and disturbing.

                  Also, why aren’t there any protests against the mass murder of homosexuals (and Christians, and…) by ISIS. Surely breathing is as important as predenting you are a blushing bride, right?

                • Asmondius

                  Free speech for all, or none at all.

                • See the masthead above.
                  “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity”

    • Asmondius

      Just as is the case with abortion, Chuck?

      • Comparing abortion to marriage equality is like comparing a fish to a bicycle.

        • GG

          He is not comparing the two. He is using the principle you proposed.

          • DEAR GG:

            It’s still a flawed comparison. Ever since Roe v. Wade, support for and opposition to abortion has fluctuated, but attitudes haven’t really changed dramatically:
            http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/en43p25txeahy7ghpr604g.png

            The overall trend in support for marriage equality, however, has been generally positive. I have no doubt that, five years from now, there will be people like you who are just as angry about Gay couples marrying as you are today. But most people will consider it a non-issue.

            • GG

              There are more abortions today than before 1973. The legalization has dulled consciences and hardened hearts. That will happen with fake marriage too. The law is a teacher. Teach evil and you get more of it.

              • Nevertheless, I’m sticking with my prediction that, five years from now, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages. Conversely, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.

                • GG

                  You are arguing that people are lax and immoral. Message received.

                  • The REAL enemies of marriage are no-fault divorce, infidelity, and spouse abuse. Don’t blame Gay couples who wish to marry for that.

                    • Asmondius

                      One does not defecate on the meal simply because it was slightly overcooked.

                    • GG

                      All of those you list harm society.

                    • Chairm

                      They do not want to marry. They want society to treat their version of non-marriage as the equivalent (morally, legally, functionally, conceptually) as the union of husband and wife. They demand a falsehood be imposed on all of society.

                • Chairm

                  Your remarks are just speculative with little, if any, rational basis.

            • Asmondius

              What ‘trend’ is that? Certainly not wherever it was put up for a vote.

            • Asmondius

              You made my point nicely – despite the support of activists, progressives, so-called ‘popular opinion’, and the courts for unlimited abortion, the majority of Americans clearly do not agree. Each year local jurisdictions are imposing more and more legal restrictions and more abortion clinics close..
              .
              The same is true of same sex unions. The polls always show such glowing numbers, yet invariably whenever it’s been put to a vote the overwhelming majority of the time it has been defeated. You’re going to have to build a lot of new prisons to hold those who as a matter of conscience will not recognize homosexual unions.

            • No, the left will be foisting something else on us then.

        • Comparing what two men do in a counterfeit effort to mimic intercourse is to say that the anus is the same thing as lady parts.

          • “Lady parts.” Heh.

            • Would you prefer “down there”? It’s a family show Chuck, not a San Fransicko parade.

        • Asmondius

          Stay in context – each is a moral issue whose resolution is imposed by the judiciary.

    • St JD George

      5 years aside, truthfully Chuck I would love nothing more than for you to spend eternity in Heaven. Christ came into the world to forgive our sins once, but he also taught us the way that leads to him which includes not living in a state of mortal sin without repentance and asking for his forgiveness. When you love Christ with all your soul, wanting to please him comes naturally. Living in a world centered on yourself will never lead to fulfillment.

      • Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

        No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

        THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay. It looks like American voters are starting to accept that. And it certainly is NOT “self-centered.”

        • St JD George

          Self centered is when you place what pleases you before what you know to be pleasing to God. Jesus also said “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” It may come to pass that God’s laws are ignored again at peril, but it was not that way in the beginning.

          • So why would an Atheist couple marry? Please speculate about that.

            • St JD George

              For the purpose of being able to file a married filing joint return I suppose. What does it mean to you if there is no sacrament to honor – just a piece of paper stamped by a judge?
              There are people you know who want to marry their pets, marry multiple partners, marry inanimate objects, even one last year I read that wanted to marry themselves. I guess they love those things too.

              • Sorry, “slippery slope” arguments about people marrying pets or inanimate objects are just rather pathetic.

                • St JD George

                  Why? This is a discussion about marriage isn’t it? Without belief, the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything after all isn’t it? It may not be for you, but it apparently is for others. Don’t be so dismissive of their feelings for “things”.

                  • If you want to champion the cases of people who want to marry their pets, you’ll get no help from me. All I’m interested in equal protection under the law for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples. Unless the Constitution only applies to Straight people, there’s no justification for denying law-abiding Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

                    If you think those benefits and opportunities should be given to people who want to marry their pets, you can argue their case yourself.

                    • “All I’m interested in equal protection under the law for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples. ”
                      That’s very greedy and self-absorbed of you Chuck. What about siblings who want to marry. Walk the walk, Chuck.

                    • LarryCicero

                      If you are really for equality, then you would argue for the legal benefits and opportunities of singles to be that of married couples. Why should it matter what you do with your “lover” or whether or not you have a “lover?” What if I live with my mother- do you love your mother? Does one have to marry her to get equal treatment? Why should a pervert get special treatment? You are for normalization of perversion, not equality of benefits and opportunities.

                    • Chairm

                      No gay requirement for those who’d SSM anywhere SSM has been imposed. Don’t need to SSM to self-identify as gay, to do gay sexual stuff, etc. No outcome is enforced based on gayness. So there is no such thing as “gay marriage”.

                      Likewise for “straight marriage” under the supposed ban on “gay marriage”, you might retort. And that would knock the knees out from under your rhetoric and argumentation.

                      You need to define your terms.

                  • Vinny

                    It’s Chuck’s turn on this comment page today. The other day it was “retona4” unless they’re the same person. Hopefully, St JD George’s enlightening of Chuck will have a positive effect though don’t expect to see it today.

                    • St JD George

                      If my own troubled path to Christ is any consolation, I know what is possible when one finally opens their hearts to the love that flows from our Creator, and to have patience because everyone’s path and struggles to get their are varied.

                    • Hey Vinny, it’s yet another episode of wailing and gnashing of teeth about marriage equality here at Crisis Magazine. What did you expect? And of course, the hysteria will pitch even higher the closer we get to the Supreme Court’s decision.

                    • Asmondius

                      Chuck just happens to be on duty today with the pro-homo playbook.

                • I think you might be speaking from a position of authority on pathos, Chuck. Nonetheless, you are wrong. If you can marry another dude, surfer boy Kody can get some new “sister wife” to replace Meri. Why shouldn’t the state recognize all his “marriages” Chuck?

        • That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
          But they can. You merely make a mess.

        • Veritas

          Don’t believe ‘ya, Chuck. Why are gay people asking religious people to violate their consciences? Tell them to stop, Chuck.

          Are you willing to march in a religious freedom parade?

          • Asmondius

            Only if participating middle-aged men can wear Speedos and hold hands.

        • Asmondius

          Wouldn’t the antonym for ‘straight’ be ‘bent’?

          • Or twisted.

            • Asmondius

              ‘Crooked’? It’s interesting that homosexuals have always had a sort of self-deprecating manner of speech.

              • LarryCicero

                Synonym for straight- upright?

                • Asmondius

                  Did you draw an ‘uptight’ line today? Are we speaking English here?

                • Asmondius

                  So sorry – tired eyes read your comment too quickly .
                  .
                  Yes, ‘straight’ could certainly mean ‘upright’.

          • If you are referring of objects like nails, yes.

            • Asmondius

              I am referring to the English language.

              • Well, slang terms change. Language evolves. When it comes to “Straight” and “Gay,” everyone knows what it means in the context of sexual orientation.

                • Asmondius

                  Oh, I see – just as you refer to adolescent boys as ‘Twinks’.

                • Chairm

                  What does it mean?

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Americans who had lost their natural and Constitutional rights under the law of the land used to be a powerful force for change. The judiciary has rendered that force impotent. The Fugitive Slave Law by which Northerners were forced by law to ‘assist’ Southern slave-catchers gave us one great moment in our history. The ‘legal’ kidnapping of former slave Stephen Burns (the police of Boston forced to assist these low-life catchers) led to Garrison’s famous speech at Faneuil Hall where he got up and sarcastically addressed the crowd “My Fellow Virginians….” the crowd roared and roared. Yes Garrison called for secession early on and has taken a lot of flack ever since. For all his faults he did not want to be part and party to EVIL. “Forced to actively assist against one’s conscience….” Same deal.

  • maineman

    It pays to keep in mind that, in 1968, the Democratic party was visibly cannibalized by the forces of evil and has been the party of death, leading the culture of death ever since.

    In it’s ranks we have seen active pedophiles and participants in homosexual prostitution rings as congressmen, a president who had sex with a prostitute on the night of his inauguration, and now a reputedly closeted homosexual in the Presidency who, as it turns out, came into office with the agenda of replacing the real gem of marriage with the costume jewelry version.

    True, the Republicans have rolled over and many of them, by now, become equally craven, but there can be little doubt that the same-sex “marriage” battering ram has done the damage that it has because our entire government has decreed it so. Nor is there doubt who is driving the bus and who put it in their hands in the first place.

  • Mongo

    How true all that is. Cowardly, lying jurists pretty much run the U.S. and it’s a catastrophically stupid populace which will put up with them.

    • Oh now, judges have enormous gavels, impressive resumes and black robes, and we call them “your honor” and stand when the enter the room-they must be omniscient, benevolent and incorrupt, right?

      • Mongo

        Running crying on the shoulders of characterless bottomfeeder lawyers/’judges’ for problem resolution, like everyone does in the U.S., is beyond pathetic.

        • We love litigation.
          Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown owe their celebrity tribunals to our affection for litigation.

  • HartPonder

    This concern is a cake walk to what is really going on…

    “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12

    • Pun intended? (i agree with your point, just couldn’t resist).

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    At times it’s downright frustrating, patrolling readers’ comments and bumping into so few definitive solutions. Yes, leave it to God, but God rarely (if ever) acts outside (without) human agency. Heavens! Why doesn’t that sink in – we’re (mostly) Catholics here. A few are Thomists.

    The only question left to be ask (once more) isw Lenin’s: How should we
    then live? Better put, How should you and your household live?

    1. After morning prayers jump onto Jones’ Infowars for guidance?
    2. Turn totalitarian pacifists/distributionists/depressionists, assuming our sacrifice of inactivity will stop womb murder?
    3. Withdraw utterly from society & neighbors?
    4. Swell of our Catholic sites bookmarked by a third?
    5. Tell our 13 year-old sons and daughters, Good luck, it’s all yours own?
    7. When ISIS torches its nightly lot of cars in Topeka and Tampa, to thank God our SUV is safe on the curb.
    8.
    When ISIS raid San Francisco’s Castro District for a pickup load of
    confiscated gays, tossing them off the Golden Gate Bridge, to thank God
    we’re not gay.
    9. When ISIS raids a Sunday morning service in the
    Baptist church across town, slaughtering and beheading, to thank God
    we’re not Calvinist Scot-Presbyterian heretical Protestants?
    10.
    Under ISIS there will be no abortions, period. Lots of infanticides to
    compel families to convert and pay the islamic tithe, but no abortions.
    That’s one way to overturn Roe vs Wade!

    Nos 7, 8, 9 have already
    been prophesied, if not only in the pipeline, We must diligently work
    for and preserve the civil liberty we can – expanding its domain, as we
    can, so we do have the freedom to hold vigils outside the increasingly
    decreasing abortion mills, take our families to high or low mass – and keep our SUV un-torched.

    Take
    freedom as it comes, be a good steward of what’s put in our hand,
    crosses our path – increase its boundaries – even if that means B.
    Spinoza ends up publishing his sad little book, and Robert Funk dies
    with his grey ashes scattered over the dustbin of his Jesus Seminar.
    Even if it means that – in the ebb and flow of cities – the Castro
    District gayly lights up on Friday nights!

    Putting the premium on
    liberty is a Christian virtue and witness. It awards Christian bakers
    with the authority to say no to “gay weddings”.

    • Michael S.

      C. V. Your reference to spinoza seemed irrelevant to the above article until I searched spinoza on the Crisis site and found Rev. Schall’s article on “Politics, Virtue and Intelligence” which addressed historically and philosophically the exact reasons for the actions of the judiciary in our modern state. Thanks C. V. and Crisis…..In short, there is no truth, no constitution, just order at all costs.

  • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

    Mr. Clinton writes, “The fact is, conservatives are losing the battle over traditional marriage and religious liberty for one simple reason: judicial supremacy.”

    Judicial support merely reflects the shift in public opinion on the matter. While it’s true to claim that “51,483,777 votes in favor of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage, versus 33,015,412 votes in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s a vote margin of 60.93 percent to 39.07 percent, a landslide in American politics,” it must be noted that those polls occurred some time ago and no longer reflect public opinion today.

    According to Pew, in 2001, 57% of voters opposed same-sex marriage, while only 35% supported it. By 2011, that had changed and voters slightly supported same-sex marriage. Support for SSM has rapidly grown since then, so that by 2014, 52% supported SSM and only 40% opposed it.
    (http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)

    According to a 2015 CNN/ORC poll, support for SSM is now up to 63% — a clear supermajority. Support among both Democrats and Republicans has increased significantly.

    Among people under 30, support for SSM is much higher than it is among the general population. Clearly the shift is partly generational, with younger voters in the electorate gradually replacing older ones.

    The rate of increase in support for SSM appears to be growing with each passing year, making opposition to SSM a losing proposition in the political sphere.

    NOTE: None of this information regarding votes, polls, or trends reflects on the inherent rightness or wrongness of SSM. However, we need to note that the change in public opinion is real. In many states, acceptance of SSM is now a reality, making further voting initiatives such as Prop 8 extraneous. Prop 8, which passed in California in 2008, would not pass today. Dr. Morse’s arguments have credence. The argument that anti-SSM supporters have won based on voting that took place even six or seven years ago is spurious.

    • “Judicial support merely reflects the shift in public opinion on the matter. ”

      The judiciary is not supposed to be divining public opinion. You have offered another indictment against their conduct.

      • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

        It was not my goal to suggest that the Supreme Court should be divining public opinion. My intention was to point out that the judiciary is not, in this case, overriding public opinion, which is what Mr. Clinton’s article suggested.

        • “It was not my goal to suggest that the Supreme Court should be divining public opinion. ”

          But you did just that.

          • disqus_gEynqDDvb8

            Try reading it again very, very slowly.

            • Just because you can’t seem to comprehend what you wrote, doesn’t mean that we can’t.

        • Mike W

          It is completely overriding public opinion in the properly controlled method of determining that opinion. Polls are very easily rigged and the judiciary is meant to follow the law, not their perceived feeling for the general mood. Given the amount of propaganda supporting the marriage redefinition it is not surprising the support has climbed, especially among the naive.

    • Chairm

      Every survey on the topic manged to under-estimate the votes cast in favor of state marriage measures by at least a 10% margin. The Ssm side’s arguments have not improved in the meantime and the consequences of SSM imposition have already undermined the SSM campaign’s supposed themes of tolerance and righteous opposition to arbitrariness. The SSM side has gained strength through the abuse of judicial review and that is a corruptive influence on governance and much else.

  • NDaniels

    The Magisterium is responsible for allowing those who profess to be Catholic but deny that God Is The Author of Life and Marriage to continue to present themselves to receive The Holy Eucharist. In order to be a disciple of The Christ, one must remain in communion with His Church. Those who deny God Is The Author of Life and Marriage, are part of The Great Apostasy.

    The real culprit is deny that from the moment of conception, every

  • Ruth Rocker

    A large part of the problem is that most people, including legislators, don’t seem to understand the simple principle of separation of powers. The legislature MAKES the laws and the judiciary is supposed to ENFORCE those laws. We currently have a judiciary that is making law up as they go along. Unless someone, oh, say CONGRESS, stops it, we might as well chuck democracy into the trash bin and stop the masquerade that it is really our form of government.

    The oligarchy marches on. A revolution is brewing.

    • No revolution. The constabulary is being militarized to mitigate against that exposure. Most of the serfs don’t even realize their servitude.

  • athanasius777

    People on both sides of the aisle and issue simply had difficulty getting their minds around the idea that the Supreme Court might not have final, exclusive interpretive authority in all constitutional matters. So thoroughly have we been brought under the spell of the courts that even our elected representatives do not appear to believe they have the competence or authority to deal with constitutional issues.

    Many probably weren’t even aware of the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, although it was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as follows:

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    If “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only,” then citizens being fined or otherwise punished for not engaging in behavior that violates their conscience — for non-action — like not providing services to a same-sex marriage celebration, or not paying for drugs/procedures the purpose of which is to take an innocent human life, is clearly contrary to intent of the Founders. The contemporary interpretation of the “separation of church and state,” used as it is now to separate traditional American values and ethics from government policy, amounts to an overthrow of the government established by the Founders.

  • Charles Putter

    People don’t need to get married to have children. Everyone knows that. Marriage is essentilly a religious right. GOVERNMENTS MUST GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GETTING MARRIED. If they wish to give financial benefits to people who live together, so be it. They can make laws and regulations which will control those benefits. Traditional (relgious) marriage must not be destroyed under the banner of equality of treatment in the assignment of these secondary benefits. Be assured the black-robed ones will always devise arguments to impose their way of thinking.

    If the primary reason for getting married is “love” and “erotic sex” then what is wrong with polygamy. More love and more erotic sex are bad for the ordinary citizen! Methinks not. In fact, the only issue is how should a government support it, and of course be “very popular” and “progressive” on voting day.

  • $1292934

    Given that this article is about an “outlaw judiciary”-how does one vet a judicial candidate, even on a local level? They have to run as an individual, not with a particular political party.

    • The other problem is any candidate will already have been vetted, by being an Ivy graduate, member in good standing of the Bar and a myriad of other tests that ensure they hold the proper opinions.

  • Jacqueleen

    One thing I do agree on is that the same sex marriage war is to destroy the Catholic Church. How else will the greedy, ruling class of Satanic thugs be able to sell the world on One Religion for all…(one size fits all) God help us and convert them!

    What amazes me is how many people in all walks of life are supporting this mess! Are they all under the Spirit of Lust! Are they all parading down the wide road to the abyss? Are they blind to the results of the Sexual Revolution? Don’t they care about their children and future generations, i.e., if we even get that far? Since we live in a society that is holding hands with Satan and prefers choice…these supporters of sin are choosing a horrible eternal life and are blind to it all. (Perverse Spirits, Lying Spirits, Anti-Christ Spirits, The Deaf and Mute Spirits..) Lord, lift the veil from their eyes and save souls! Lord, you are the chief Exorcist, bind and cast out those evil demonic spirits that have over taken this country and most of the souls herein. Replace them with the Holy Spirit and a Renewal across this once great country of ours. Thank you, Lord…

  • Mike W

    There is some hope because the discussion is not purely
    religion verses sexual “freedom”. There are many secular arguments against
    redefining marriage (it is not a ban) as can be seen by the number of
    homosexuals and children that have suffered under homosexual “parents.” It
    should be, slowly, becoming clear that Eg denying someone their livelihood and
    imposing huge court costs for not supplying a “wedding” cake (which of course
    is a forced affirmation of approval) is not even the rough justice of an eye
    for and eye. It is more like thousands of eyes for an eye. Any objective
    assessment (as confirmed by the polls) indicates very clearly to both religious
    and non-religious people alike, that the judiciary, in many circumstances and
    the government officialdom, who impose these sorts of injustices, are
    extraordinarily out of line. How they are brought to account is a huge matter
    but we need to focus on the basic facts that biology should have standing under
    the law and anonymous, artificial insemination and surrogacy are in no way
    equal to biological parenthood. There are far too many problems associated.

    The present situation certainly puts the lie to the idea
    that it is purely a matter of secularism. For years we have been told that we
    are not entitled to impose our morality onto others (which is not actually
    correct in a democracy) but apparently they are completely entitled to impose
    as much immorality on us as they desire – clearly and obviously, by any even
    marginally objective assessment, a double standard.

  • SgtJUSMC

    Nullification, personal, State and Jury!

  • Mike W

    I don’t think using terms such as “elite”, “enlightened”, “marriage ban” and others such as “progressive” is useful, even in a sarcastic sense. If the judiciary were in fact enlightened they would take into account the substantial amount of data that show the adverse effect of homosexual “parenthood” and all the associated risks instead of effectively just taking a handful of lesbian’s word for it. They would recognize the rock-solid, biological definition of marriage instead of the ethereal, love-based idea or the nonsense idea that because homosexuals can be productive members of society we should redefine marriage. The whole idea of all being equal means there are no “elite” but this does not mean that all actions and relationships are equal and we are not actually progressing but regressing to something akin to pre-Christian Rome, with all the associated injustices and tyranny and we are doing this while naive people are persuaded by the huge amount of spin and guile and the hatred of those who want to be immoral, against those who want to stand up for morality.

  • Objectivetruth

    Here we go, everyone. Lifesitenews is putting together a full page ad in the SF Chronicle supporting Archbishop Cordeleone. Let’s support it. Thank you, Lifesitenews:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com

  • Paddy

    Where is Western Civilization still standing, and not punch drunk? it must collapse and we must suffer the consequences for three centuries or more. It’s too late.

  • Chairm

    Very good article.

    For more than a decade I have been making the same argument. The SSM attack against the marriage idea is corruptive on many levels.

  • Cha5678

    Man is a creature meant for communion. We seek Truth. If man breaks communion with God and His commandments, man will seek a replacement. Man will create our own gods, our own worship, we will seek communities willing to tell us our truth is correct. It’s still not enough so we will force others to affirm our truth. Welcome to the new religious wars. Our combatants operate with religious zeal unseen in centuries

MENU