Tim Kaine Is No Prophet

Wednesday, September 14, AD 2016


Faithful readers of this blog know that I am a fan of The Lutheran Satire videos.  The man behind them, Lutheran Pastor Hans Fiene, has a great post at The Federalist on Tim Kaine’s prediction that the Catholic Church will ultimately approve gay marriage.  He ends on a note of optimism that I believe is completely acccurate:

What Kaine fails to recognize, however, is that Francis is the peak rather than the beginning of liberalism’s ascendancy, that his generation’s Catholicism is in its last gasp. American cultural Christianity is in its death throes. The social mechanisms that have kept heterodox people in the pews and in seminaries are evaporating. For several generations, cultural and moral relativism-spouting court preachers in soft clothing have taught their people that the church body has nothing of substance to offer them, and our nation’s children are finally responding accordingly.

So while Kaine may feel optimistic when he sees that millennials overwhelmingly favor gay marriage, he forgets that, unlike his generation, millennials also overwhelmingly favor not bothering to change the dogma of churches they’ve already quit attending. No matter how many secular cheerleaders your side may have, it will be rather hard for Kaine’s camp to win the battle for Catholicism’s future when they don’t have any actual soldiers under the age of 50.

The future of Christianity does not belong to those who want to clothe themselves in both the robes of the church and the approval of the world. It belongs to those who gladly endure the rejection of this world to taste the kingdom of God. The future of Christianity does not belong to the hordes of aging white, liberal American cafeteria Catholics or a la carte Protestants who insist it doesn’t really matter what you believe as long as you have love in your heart. Christendom’s future belongs to the stubborn young bloods of all tribes and tongues throughout the world who will actually bother to show up because they actually believe what their creeds and catechisms confess.

In the years to come, at least in our nation, our pews may be emptier but the faithful few who fill them will be looking for genuine forgiveness instead of shallow validation. The next generation of clergymen will be far more likely to proclaim it to them, just as they will be more likely to preach genuine repentance to the next generation of Kaines and Paul Simons instead of covering their ears every time those supposedly devout Catholics and Lutherans claim to be “personally opposed” to an evil they’ve consistently worked to perpetuate.

The future of Christianity does not belong to those who are certain the pope will one day see the light on gay marriage or any other unbiblical notion about marriage. The future of Christianity does not belong to those who publicly deny the doctrines of their church bodies, but to those who will boldly confess them, thank God where they are unified with other denominations, and seek to resolve their divisions until Christ blesses us with the unity he prayed for.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Tim Kaine Is No Prophet

Biden Marries Gays

Tuesday, August 9, AD 2016

Dave Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts comments on the fact that Veep and beloved National Clown Joe Biden has gone into the marrying biz:



According to this story, Bishops want clarification from Joe Biden after Biden – Catholic – officiated at a gay wedding.   They act as shocked as Charley Owens at something that should be as predictable as bad reality TV.  Why I don’t know.  He’s a liberal Catholic who, like most religious liberals, follows the Left.  Wherever the Left goes, the liberal believer will follow.  That’s why nobody cares about the Religious Left.   Not that Trump and the GOP haven’t exposed a glaring problem in the Religious Right and its ability to throw doctrine and morals under the bus to fit the latest political movement.  It’s just that traditionally, Conservative believers held the line and demanded at least some fealty to their most cherished beliefs.

The religious left has no such feather in its cap.  If the modern Left demanded sex with animals, you’d have religious liberals scouring the history books or religious texts to find something that would validate it or, in lieu of a worthwhile discovery, simply toss the history and the Scriptures in the file, declare them irrelevant, and move on.  So what does the Left in general care about religious liberals?  Whatever the Left demands, it gets.

So Biden officiating at a gay wedding shouldn’t be shocking.  He is liberal.  The Church is wrong and it’s high damn time the Church change and get with the times.  Oh, maybe there was a time it was right, or it couldn’t help being wrong because of backward thinking.  Some progressives are willing to invoke a sense of moral superiority over those wrong thinking types of yore.  But whatever the reason, the teachings are declared wrong, and it shouldn’t be shocking that a liberal Catholic would, as usual, move forward and cleave unto the latest, hippest on this topic.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Biden Marries Gays

  • The addiction to sodomy is not a civil right. All addiction violates the free will of man as man is created. Every American citizen is a constituent of both the president and the vice-president. When the president or vice president acts on his own initiative without the informed consent of his constituents and their voice in Congress, they act outside of their office as president and vice -president, alone, on their own opinion and their one vote. Neither, Obama nor Biden ought to be compensated by their constituents for acting on their own initiative and their own opinion as ordinary men outside of their public office. It is taxation without representation. If the Catholic Bishops do not know how to handle this heretic, at least the people who are being shoustered (not a word) ought to remove any monetary reward for being disenfranchised by Biden.

  • Biden did not “marry gays.” He did something, but it is not possible for two people of the same sex who voluntarily engage in homosexual acts to marry. The government can try to usurp the role of telling us what is and what is not moral, what is and what is not a sin, whayt is and what is not natural, – in some ways this is an ultimate power – but the government cannot by merely saying so declare that a dog’s tail is a leg, dog’s have five legs, and in future to say that dogs have four legs is a hate crime. We have seen many governments that have tried to impose their own religion – Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela – but they always fail, despite their lies. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • Guy McClung: It is Abraham Lincoln who spoke the phrase “but the government cannot by merely saying so declare that a dog’s tail is a leg, dog’s have five legs.”

Burn Kim Davis

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2015



In a Swiftian proposal at The Week, Michael Brendan Dougherty suggests a punishment for Kim Davis, currently released by the Federal Judge who jailed her due to her deputies issuing licenses to gays to marriage, something Kim Davis has vowed to halt:


The Supreme Court had to know it would come to this. It had to know that in taking away the authority of states and the people to define marriage as a conjugal union, some force would be necessary to compel obedience.

A conflict about religious liberty and the authority of the state was bound to happen around marriage issues, just as it did nearly five centuries ago during the Reformation. Whatever we say about the separation of church and state, marriage is an institution that acts as a bridge between them. Religious institutions define the moral purpose and eligibility for marriage, while the state used juridical power to guarantee that stability of the institution.

So it’s not a surprise that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which redefined marriage nationwide to include same-sex couples, reads more like a religious confession than a legal opinion. Instead of concerning itself with merely the legal consequences of marriage, it reaches outward to commend people to its “transcendent purposes” and “highest meaning.” It projected backward the true meaning of the 14th Amendment based on developments in psychology a century later, just the way religious scholars read Old Testament prophecies in light of the new. It offered miraculous contradictions of the evidence of our eyes by saying that legal developments in recent centuries represent new insights, and “[t]hese new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage.” It also offered an incorrect story of the entire history of the institution:

For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman.

It also, like a 13th century papal bull, constricted the rights of non-conformists, when it assured religious believers that they may “advocate” for their beliefs and believe them, just not act on them and exercise them in the public square.

Kennedy’s decision is only the latest in a long series of decisions in which the state progressively usurps the role of religion in defining the eligibility of individuals, moral purpose, eschatological meaning, and “transcendent purpose” for the institution of marriage. Notice even the subtle way the Griswold decision evokes but revises marriage indissolubility. “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.” (Emphasis mine.) Davis’ protest, however confused about the legal consequences it risks, is properly understood as a religious one.

So let me suggest, modestly, that instead of the National Guard or a jail cell, she should be handed a more properly religious punishment, one that honors America’s evolving understanding of the separation of church and state. Before the sentence for contempt was handed down, Brian Beutler wrote in The New Republic that “she should be put behind bars until she relents one way or another.”

Any attempt to force her hand risks making her a bigger martyr on the religious right than she already is, but that risk is small compared to the risk that allowing her to continue abusing her power without consequence will create a terrible precedent. There are surely other religious clerks in the South and elsewhere who’d love to get away with discriminating against gays and lesbians, in defiance of the country’s highest court. [The New Republic]

What Beutler advocates here is making of Davis a “fearful example,” often used to compel conformity in doctrine. He’s after people’s hearts, hoping to change those who would dissent. But he doesn’t go far enough.

True, no GoFundMe campaign can restore days of life lost in a jail cell. But Davis has already indicated that jail is nothing to her compared to serving God. She’s just sitting there with the approval of her conscience!

And besides, many think that putting Davis in jail risks exciting sympathy for her and a viral donation campaign that will ultimately reward her for her intransigence. The conclusion is obvious.

Any normal punishment rewards her with the comfort of solidarity from right-wing Christians, or her own sense of moral self-approval. Therefore the only way to avoid granting her such “martyrdom” is to actually martyr her. That’s the really perverse thing about Christians who make a spectacle like this. The only way the state can really punish them is to inform them that their suffering is meaningless and proving that God doesn’t exist by sending them to the darkness of oblivion in torment. Justice Kennedy has issued his theological bull; let Kentucky officials in defiance of it be put on a pyre.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Burn Kim Davis

  • Maybe our bishops can learn something from Kim Davis.

  • “….the comfort of solidarity from “right-wing Christians”

    Can there ever exist such a hybrid as a “left-wing” Christian?
    The idea that true Christianity can licitly embrace the many evils immutably bonded in the soul and bowels of the “left-wing,” without corrupting the admonition directly from Christ that we are “either with him or against him” is not only absurd, but demonic.
    There can be no moral equivalency between grave evil and good, regardless of the seductive word-smithing of the left.
    On the other hand, “right-wing” also reeks of it’s own lesser brand of corruption of the good.

  • Father of seven.

    I hope the Bishops do learn something, but I’m wondering how important they view their Grant $ from the Fed’s, and that relationship, vs. speaking out on issues which could jeopardize said relationship?

    What if the government and the church did not commingle fund’s? I’m naive about these matters… but I am curious. What is the gain vs loss if the church didn’t get these Grant’s?

    Would She better at proclaiming the Truth or would many thousands of people suffer losses that Catholic Charities provides?

  • “….the comfort of solidarity from “right-wing Christians”. Can there ever exist such a hybrid as a “left-wing” Christian?

    Another time, another place. At a time when the Church was fairly self-confident and vigorous in the propagation of its views, a particular take on political economy as a counter-point to views derived from Marxism might have merited the moniker. We have not lived in that world for nearly 60 years.

  • The homosexual activitists and their liberal heterosexual supporters will eventually demand the execution of people advocating traditional marriage. They have to make that demand because not doing so means that people who try to live in conformity to the Gospel are a constant pricking of the conscience that cannot ever be tolerated. Then will come the need for a Maccabean response. Like it or not, there is a reason why God nuked Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course I neither advocate nor want that to happen, but the truth is this: the cancer of sterile sexual perversion has to be either conquered by an all powerful medicine or excised by the surgical knife. It is either us or them, and they will not tolerate our freedom to practice our beliefs in the public square. Didn’t something like this happen about a century and a half ago when the Supreme Court back then made another bone-headed, dumb-stupid-idiot decision?

  • Oh, I imagine the gaystapo and their puppy dogs in the legal profession will favor the Singapore solution where anyone who stands in their way faces bankrupting civil suits.

    We’ve reached a point where it’s time for the elected officials to open up that can of whoop-ass. Let’s see if they have the cojones.

  • Have you noticed that the main stream news media isn’t talking much about Kim davis any longer? Apparently making her a visible martyr has backfired on them.

  • Art Deco: “We’ve reached a point where it’s time for the elected officials to open up that can of whoop-ass. Let’s see if they have the cojones.”
    Speaking of whoop-as, sodomy is a pain in one’s whoop-as. Speaking of “cojones”, the Supreme Court in Obergefell nixed all “cojones” and made verbal eunuchs of all citizens by imposing a “no-gender” marriage. A “no-gender” marriage removes the testimony of the gay agenda that lust is love and sodomy is the marital act. Without testicles, the testimony carries no weight. A “no-gender ” marriage will not bring forth our constitutional posterity. This is treason against our Preamble. Verbal spaying of the nation is treason against the people. Verbal castrating of the people is unconstitutional.

  • Removing the acknowledgement of God and the acknowledgement of the person’s immortal, human soul, free will, intellect and all unalienable human rights by redefining the human person as having “no gender” is the imposition of atheism by the Court. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” is the First Amendment not to be contradicted by any insinuation of the Fourteenth Amendment that man has “no gender”, A “no gender” person invented by the Court does not exist.

  • Atheism and the imposition of atheism is unconstitutional.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis' Words of Affirmation - Big Pulpit
  • I read elsewhere (on the internet so I pass it on with a reader beware notice) that Kentucky law requires marriage licenses to be issued in the county of the bride’s home. that is the law kim davis swore to follow in her oath of office. that makes it impossible to follow the law and issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

    until the Kentucky legislature reviews and amends all aspects of its current law, Kentucky has no law governing same-sex marriage. it does still have a law governing marriage between a man and a woman.

    so, according to the five judicial tyrants, the constitution requires same-sex marriage; but, the laws of the state of Kentucky do not.

    importantly, the constitution does not provide anyone with how the laws governing marriage must be written. nor does the constitution have any language to govern marriage.

  • eddie too.

    Hummm. Origin of the bride’s home.
    Good find.
    Bride? Really?
    I’m just not sensitive to the plight of the sodomites.

    To the plight of the repenting homosexual, yes.
    CourageRC.org. you bet!

    The time is nearing when our brothers must decide for God or self. That time is nearing for all of us. Thank God for our Holy Catholic Church. The church that doesn’t change to the whims of the culture… Since God doesn’t change!

  • The Catholic Church is afraid that if it speaks out it will lose its tax exempt status, and probably be harassed by the government. And the church is correct. Think Lois Lerner. Kim Davis is going to jail but Hillary Clinton who is taking away our “deep seated cultural codes and religious beliefs” to accommodate human sacrifice, has just been cleared as she had the authority to remove classified email from her server.
    Taxes are paid by the parishioners. The church’s holding are held in trust for all future generations. Donations, gifts and behests are tax free for everyone. Separation of church and state forbids the state from making any laws pertaining to the church. Read Thomas Jefferson’ letter to the Danbury Baptist Church wherein Jefferson reaffirms man’s conscience. This Supreme Court would put George Washington in jail.

  • “The Catholic Church is afraid that if it speaks out it will lose its tax exempt status,”
    How many ways can you spell(thirty pieces of silver)?

A Rigged Game

Friday, September 4, AD 2015

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges–leading a Volk who will be “tested by following,” and whose very “belief in themselves” is mystically bound up in their “understanding” of a Court that “speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals”–with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

“The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .” The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).

From the dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)





Kim Davis, elected Democrat county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, goes to jail for defying a Federal court over gay marriage.  Details from Allahpundit at Hot Air:

An interesting detail from BuzzFeed: Lawyers for the gay couples who want her to issue the licenses asked the court to fine her, not send her to jail. Since when do gay-rights supporters ask for leniency for a Christian who’s defying them on gay marriage? Since, I think, this case started picking up national media attention. They don’t want to make a martyr out of Davis. Locking her up does that in a visible way that hitting her in the wallet doesn’t.

The judge ordered her locked up anyway. For a reason:


The court assumed, not unreasonably, that sympathizers would shower her with cash to cover the fine, which means there’d be no real pressure on her to comply with the order to begin issuing licenses. The only way to pressure her was jail.

David told Todd Starnes of Fox News that she was prepared for that if it came to it:

“I’ve weighed the cost and I’m prepared to go to jail, I sure am,” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview. “This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”

This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.”…

“I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave,” she said, pondering her choices. “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.

That’s the first time I’ve heard a religious believer suggest that they wouldn’t have a voice for God without their public office, but okay. Meanwhile, Kentucky needs to figure out what to do about marriage licenses while she’s in jail. She can’t be fired; she’s an elected official. She could be impeached by the state legislature, but good luck getting politicians to hold a big public pageant in a red state to boot a devout Christian from office for resisting gay marriage as a matter of conscience.

Well, this is good news.  I assume that we can now expect Federal courts to order the jailing of all who defy statutes and court orders.  The IRS has blithely stated for years that they simply “are not in compliance” with various Federal court orders and suffered zero consequences.   I  eagerly await the incarceration of the mayors of hundreds of “sanctuary cities” around the country that have held that somehow the Federal immigration laws of this country do not apply within their communities.  Then we have President Obama who has pointedly in the past simply refused to enforce laws that he does not agree with, and has unilaterally ordered what he clearly lacks the power, under the Constitution, to order.

Continue reading...

65 Responses to A Rigged Game

  • Another sad thing about this is that people are coming out of the woodwork, condemning her immoral life before she became a Christian. We live in a world, now, where people somehow truly believe that there’s no such thing as forgiveness or repentance — you’re forever stuck in your old life and can never turn your life around. This woman didn’t even do .001% of what Hillary Clinton has done, yet she’s in jail & Hillary is lauded as the woman of women. It makes me want to vomit.

  • Truth will win in the end.

  • Our government makes no secret that the game is now rigged. Let me explain with a
    bit of backstory: back in the latter half of 2012, Everett Stern, an employee of banking
    giant HSBC handed over to the FBI a trove of records irrefutably proving that the bank
    had been for years laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels,
    moving money for organizations linked to Al-Queda and Hezbollah and helping Iran,
    Sudan, and North Korea evade US sanctions. HSBC had been under investigation by
    the government for these things for years, but now the FBI had the smoking gun.
    And what did the DOJ decide to do? Just before Christmas 2012, the feds opted to fine
    HSBC what amounted to five week’s worth of profits and call it a day. Not one HSBC
    executive was brought up on any of the countless possible federal charges they should
    have faced. As Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer explained at the time, “had the
    US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have
    lost its banking license in the US, the future of the institution would have been under
    threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized”. In other words,
    where we used to have people and institutions that are Too Big to Fail, now we also
    have people and institutions which are Too Big to be Held Accountable to the Law. And,
    as Asst. Atty. General Breuer explained, this is our government’s policy now. The only
    person at HSBC who lost their job was Mr. Stern, the whistleblower.
    Similarly, banking giant UBS was let off the hook for its part in the LIBOR scandal,
    possibly one of the largest banking scams ever perpetrated. And when $1.6 billion in
    segregated customer funds “disappeared” from MF Global, there was the kabuki
    theater of a “congressional inquiry”, but in the end no one was ever indicted. In 2013
    HSBC only got a stern finger-wagging from the SEC because it had been shown to have
    been directing its employees to provide financial services to its clients without bothering
    with getting proper licensing from the SEC. “Too Big to Prosecute” wasn’t a one-time
    decision by this Dept. of Justice– it’s now the way things are done in these United
    All of which has been a source of relief and amusement to people like Hillary Clinton
    and Lois Lerner, I’m sure.

  • I believe we are witnessing the making of Saints in our midst. Martyrdom such as Mrs. Davis’ is a shade of red. Not blood red but very close. As yesterday’s timely reminder, Where Nero rules…, keep’s us aware that the rigged game will continue to trample on Religions Freedom. When our personal moment of truth arrives, let us be steadfast and courageous. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.

  • I believe it was former Gov. Huckabee ask why were judges not putting officials in San Francisco in jail for refusing to enforce immigration laws. What’s good for Mrs. Davis should be good for these other “law breakers”. I am proud of her for her taking a stand.

  • These problems can be partially dealt with by the president and Congress if you have a committed administration.

    1. Order the release of Kim Davis. The executive operates the jails.
    2. Withdraw the U.S. Marshall Service from given districts. Tell the judges to hire pinkertons if they want their decisions enforced. If they complain, tell them the four of them do not get their marshals back until the fifth one resigns.
    3. Use the appropriations process to shut down federal districts. If they complain they are due their salaries anyway, send them $90,000 worth of potatotes twice a year.
    4. Federal legislation to shut down given districts. Make the geographic jurisdiction of this one one square yard in the middle of the road in Greenup County.

    Of course, a congressional leadership which consists of A.M.McConnell and John Boehner (“louche, alcholic and lazy”) would never attempt to defend democratic institutions any more than they’d defend the border the Chamber-of-Commerce lobbyists want erased.

  • Mr. Mcclarey would know better than I, but this looks like selective enforcement – and that of a court decision, not a law duly passed by a legislature and signed into law by an executive.

    Of course, this is a decision/law favored by the Left. The laws the Left doesn’t like can be ignored by the Left and if anyone tries to enforce such laws/decisions on the left, then they are racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic.

  • On this Sodomy issue, will the true American Christians rise up and be counted, or will they betray the faith of Jesus Christ?
    we are all sinners but we must defend the freedom of conscience.

  • M+ And the silence from the so-called religious leaders is deafening! Wimps,…big time!

  • Fr. Chuck. Amen!

  • “I believe we are witnessing the making of Saints in our midst”.

    Her husband said today she will never give in. I suspect she’ll be fired and her livelihood ruined because she does not bow down to the robed tyrants in DC. She will not put rank judicial tyranny in front of God. Not now, not ever. God bless her.


  • D Black.

    Her husband is tight too.
    With the loss of 80k per year, chastisement from aquantice’s, misunderstanding from family and the local’s that might shun their family I might not be going out on a limb if I make the assumption that he is no slouch when it comes to standing up for Christ.

    God bless THEM!

    Let’s help them

    Change.org anyone?

  • Here is the thing….a church was not being ordered to perform a same gender marriage. So how was the matter one of religious persecution? This is not at the level of abortion. All it is is a government body issuing pieces of paper that grant certain couples certain benifits. As I’ve argued before, the state has that freedom, even if a religious group does not feel it has such freedom. If she were a Catholic, and had done her job, she would not need to deny herself communion for it.

  • JS Person, Caesar has no authority under God to compel a person to violate her Christian conscience, and when Caesar usurps that authority for himself, then it is time to do what we did in 1776.

  • “So how was the matter one of religious persecution?”

    Because the laws of this country banning gay marriage were struck down by a judicial usurpation that lacks any basis in the Constitution. This is not simply a religious persecution but a persecution against those who will not bow to an illegitimate judicial oligarchy.

  • Any person in government service, in any branch and at any level, must understand that they will be administrating/enforcing laws without regard to their opinion of the law. The employee will be informed “through [official] channels” how the law is presently written. The employee has two essential choices: obey the law as instructed or leave service. Anarchy is the alternative.

  • Actually a great many people lately have been lauded for violating laws. For example, the current Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, gained national notoriety in 2004 as mayor of San Francisco for ordering his city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. This was in violation of state law and the California Supreme Court later annulled these marriages. However, this act of contempt for the law made him a hero to liberals and he is currently running for governor in 2018. In the current culture war one side goes to jail for violating the law and the other side gets lauded by the media and gains political strength in blue states. Hypocrisy is too kind a term for this situation where conservatives are called upon to obey the law by sanctimonious liberals who do not hesitate to treat laws, including constitutions, like toilet paper when it serves their purposes.

  • Anarchy could be the vehicle for change if popular vote is squashed by judicial decree.
    When the people are not being fairly represented because of Presidential edict or judicial overreach watch out.
    The bullying will reach a limit for those who are being bullied. Anarchy might become the solution. I hope not. I can’t fathom a civil war in our era.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • Didn’t Ms. Davis swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Kentucky? Yes. Didn’t that constitution to which she swore the oath define marriage as between a man and a woman? Yes. Therefore, by issuing “marriage” licenses to same sex couples, isn’t she breaking her solemnly-sworn oath?

  • Don: If the issue is hypocrisy, then it still doesn’t justify her breaking the law. It just means that the central critique must be about hypocrisy. One could say she had to do her job AND it’s not for states to violate federal law in the manner you described.

    Also, about the Supreme Court usurpation…..

    They did not violate any laws. They did not violate the Constitution, even if only in the letter rather than the spirit. One can think it was a bad call, but we are bound to obey it. At least until an amendment were to be hypothetically passed, new judges appointmentted, etc. As long as the priests, pastors, bishops, and other

  • clergy are left alone to tell their flocks they can’t be in this kind of couple, and to not have to perform same gender marriages, then the courts ruling doesn’t even get close to the point where we should even be having the “violating an unjust law” discussion

  • “They did not violate the Constitution”

    They violated it just as much as a President who claims that he can do something that the Constitution does not grant him the power to do. Actually, what the Supreme Court majority did is worse because in effect they illegitimately amended the Constitution to reflect their policy preference. As for obedience to an illegitimate Supreme Court decision, there are pragmatic reasons for obeying most such decisions, but such obedience merely encourages the Supreme Court for future outrages, which has been certainly the case as illustrated by our post World War II history. Whenever the Supreme Court does this, the American people have diminished their most precious civil right, the right to rule themselves.

  • Don: Technically, they only interpreted the 14th amendment a certain way. One can argue whether it was too broad, but then the only solution is to amend the constituion. And if there are not enough votes to do so, then I guess the american people have spoken to a degree.

  • “Don: Technically, they only interpreted the 14th amendment a certain way.”

    Nope, they read into the Constitution something that is so beyond any textual reading of the Constitution that it might as well have come out of the bearded Spock Universe, and then struck down the laws and Constitutional provisions of the states banning gay marriage, all implemented through the democratic process, and imposed by raw judicial power national gay marriage on the strength of a one vote majority. Now people who view that as wrong are expected to amend the Constitution to repair a completely lawless Supreme Court decision? No government based upon the consent of the governed can long endure this type of high handed usurpation of power. You aren’t bothered by this because I assume you like the result. Be as cheerful when your adversaries use this concept of the Constitution as play-doh against something you cherish, and eventually they will. When one side in a political battle, and that is precisely what this is, acts like bandits, their tactics will be ultimately emulated by their adversaries.

  • Give me a hypothetical situation. What’s more, if any part of the Constitution was interpreted to forbid the Catholic Church from preaching what it always has on marriage, or forced priests to perform same gender marriages, I would agree with you.

    But this? Its not on that level.

  • A difficulty we have, Mr. JS Person, is that there are no umpires left in American political life, Most segments of the legal professional are hopeless and the news media are little better than Izvestia style agitprop peddlers. American history is now an apologetical discipline (see KC Johnson on how distorted are the hiring practices of history departments). You do not have any tidy or regularized ways of resolving political disputes and one half of the spectrum trafficks in a discourse that is fundamentally sociopathic. Fifteen years ago, Richard John Neuhaus jabbed one critic for saying of the opposition “we tell the truth; they lie; all the time and about everything”. That used to be a false statement. Now it is a moderately hyperbolic statement.

    When the gloves came off in Spain in 1934, the equivalents of Anthony Kennedy discovered the hard way that someone else had the fight in them.

  • Give me a hypothetical situation. What’s more, if any part of the Constitution was interpreted to forbid the Catholic Church from preaching what it always has on marriage, or forced priests to perform same gender marriages, I would agree with you.

    You don’t get it. Text and history matter not at all, and are not controlling. The excuses will be offered under an avalanche of verbal trumpery. The immunities of the clergy are no more protected than the immunity of the unborn.

  • I do not deny, in general, that nations can have nice sounding laws and constitutions that are ignored by the government. I also can’t guarantee with 100% certainty that some fool in the future won’t try and cross the line I described above. I have my doubts, but that’s not the same as a gurantee. One can only hope our history of freedom, multilayered court system, and legislatures will keep stopping these attempts. That, and keep eternal vigilance.

    However, one must be careful when judging what counts as a law so wrong it warrents difiance. You would otherwise have chaos. Even if an individual law represents a worrying trend, it doesn’t neccesarily warrant disobedience. I’ll admit…..a law would have to be REALLY bad in my mind to warrent difiance.

    This ruling doesn’t in my mind, get anywhere close to the line. This is not the only qualification…..but I’m just reitterating…..no one is getting hurt as a result of this specific ruling.

  • The writing is on the wall.

    “When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns it back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lesson’s of catastrophe.”
    – Frederic Bastiat

  • BTW…

    I would rather be a fool that is wholeheartedly in union with the precepts of God’s law, nature’s law, vs. the laws of weak men dipping into the plunders provided them at the cost of every taxpayer. Fools for Christ die, but their lives we’re lived to the fullest extent. They were poor, many of them, but they laid their life down as testimony of their rightful owner.
    Our lives are a gift from God. How we live them out is our gift back to Him. A selfish life is not much of a gift at all, rather it is a spiral downward leading to implosion.

    The Supreme Court did not advance our culture. It helped future generations ask for their lusts to be granted and given protection.
    They have in fact, guaranteed the demise of true Life Liberty and the pursuit of true happiness.

  • This ruling doesn’t in my mind, get anywhere close to the line. T

    The rulings which were the ultimate source of this dispute insist a solitary phrase in a constitutional provision adopted in 1868, the plain meaning of which is an admonishment to executives to apply the law diligently and impartially, require county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes (an idea almost unknown prior to 1987). Buddy, if it does not get near the line in your ‘mind’, nothing does. Quit pretending that constitutional law in your ‘mind’ is something other than the imperious statement of a judge. The pretense is tiresome.

  • Art Deco: Like I said above….you can bet I wouldn’t buy it if a judge said a priest could be legally forced to perform a same gender wedding.

    Also, as I said above…..we must be careful which laws we rule bad enough to defy. Chaos otherwise ensues. To the point saying liberals can be hypocritical about this. That doesn’t disprove this point, or even justify defying laws we disagree with that are not tyrannical. It merley means the hypocrisy must be called out.

  • In all honesty, even some liberals would be annoyed by how stringent I would be on the requirements of a situation for it to become ok to break the law.

  • Chaos otherwise ensues.

    Seems the state of the law is quite chaotic as it is absent Kim Davis intevention.

    In all honesty,


  • J.S. Person: What is being argued against is judicial tyranny. Same sex marriage may be the issue at hand but this situation could apply to any issue. The Supreme Court of the United States has arrogated to itself the authority of a pre Magna Carta Sovereign. Instead of the people of the United States devising and implementing social policy, SCOTUS now ideates what it thinks is good and, despite the first three words of the U.S. Constitution and the first three articles separating the powers, imposes its ideals on the American people. This cannot stand.
    The very ideas that drove the pilgrims from England to the shores of North America and to later write the Declaration of Independence was democracy, the rule of law, and freedom from an arbitrary sovereign. SCOTUS has become that arbitrary sovereign. The Constitution and statutes passed by representative legislatures have become mere pleadings to the sovereign.

  • what was the county clerk to do?

    on one hand, she was told that Kentucky’s laws governing marriage within the state were unconstitutional. on the other hand, she had sworn to uphold the laws of the state of Kentucky and the usa.

    since there are no federal laws governing marriage and the feds said the Kentucky laws are unconstitutional, she either had to issue licenses knowing that the laws under which she was acting were unconstitutional; or, she had to refuse to issue licenses until the legislature of Kentucky provided her with constitutional laws under which to act.

    she chose to honor her oath of office and to wait until she had constitutional laws under which to act.

    the ussc cannot write and promulgate laws. their decisions are not the same as laws.

    where in American jurisprudence have court decisions been defined as the same thing as legislatively-passed and executive-signed laws?

  • http://reason.com/archives/2015/09/04/remember-the-law-is-only-sacred-when-it

    Judicial review presupposes a particular juxtaposition of the legal profession to other professions and subcultures and pre-supposes a particular legal culture, as well as an understanding between the judiciary and the public analogous to that between the parties to a baseball game and the spectators or between the celebrant and those attending.

    That’s gone, which means that the functional (not theoretical) position of the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter must go. The question is what replaces it. This is something Robert Bork recognized a half-generation ago. Fretting over ‘chaos’ when the import of recent judicial decisions is that elected officials (and participants in referenda) have no discretion if it contravenes what is fashionable in the legal academy is sheer pecksniffery.

    Gottfried Dietze a generation ago wrote and lectured on the distinction between the diffidatio – a re-assertion of ancient liberties – as against the modern ‘revolution’. He regarded the baron’s revolt in 1215, the English civil war, and the American revolution as examples of this, in contrast with the French revolution. He also speculated we were due for another one. Both western Europe and North America are suffering under the mendacious rule of a bunch of crooked Bourbons. The legal profession (especially the appellate judiciary and legal academy), academe, the professional associations and the press have been asking for it, and they ought to get it good and hard. (Mostly, stripping them of legal privileges and public money will do).

  • Art and Zeppo.

    Square on the head!

    Thanks for the clarity.

  • “They did not violate the Constitution”


    “”It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, Ltr to W.C. Jarvis, 1820

  • The thing about judges is, we have the power to balance them out. Constitutional Amendments and the very way judges are selected. So it’s hardly an oligarchy with absolute power.

    Andrew Jackson once ignored the Supreme Court….and the result was the trail of tears (I’ll admit…he is the president I despise the most. I pray for his soul and wish it well….but his ignoring the court, especially on that, is repulsive beyond measure).

  • “Andrew Jackson once ignored the Supreme Court”

    That is a myth.


  • “Constitutional Amendments and the very way judges are selected. So it’s hardly an oligarchy with absolute power.”

    Being a Supreme Court Justice is a life time appointment, and issues continually come up before the Court that were undreamed of during confirmation hearings. (If Justice Kennedy during his confirmation hearings in 1988 had been asked about gay marriage, everyone would have regarded it as a joke in very bad taste.) It is very easy for the Supreme Court to “amend” the Constitution with an illegitimate decision. It is difficult, to the point of futility, to amend the Constitution to repair the damage to the Constitution caused by an illegitimate Supreme Court ruling.

  • ….fair enough

    Though I still hold ignoring the Court on principle is bad, and the fact that thier decisions can be corrected for with amendments makes the designation of oligarchy an unfair one.

    Recently saw an article on the federalist that outlined ways to “reform” the Court, such as elected members. This, frankly, seems a terrible idea, as is the electing of ANY judges. Even in a free republic, not all officials should be elected.

  • constitution could be amended to make passing amendments easier. Better than ignoring decisions we don’t like

  • Point of clarification (initial fair enough response to trail of tears point)

  • “constitution could be amended to make passing amendments easier.”

    Leaving aside whether that proposal would be good policy, it leaves untouched the ability of the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution at will, and that unrestrained power, in practice if not in theory, makes the Court an oligarchy.

  • What else is there? They should have the power to halt us in our tracks, and require extra effort (even if not the extra effort currently required) to overturn them. The idea that you need checks and balances on everyone….including the people….is a good one.

    Its not just that our leaders can’t be trusted with absolute power…..no one can.

  • And making it easier to pass amendments means, by definition, the courts power is not absolute.

  • Why ought SCOTUS appointments be permanent life time ones? If SCOTUS is such an oligarchy – and at least its liberal members constitute such – then why not enact a limit in term, say 10 years? And while we are at it, enact term limits for Senate and House members as well -12 years for Senate and 8 for House. And afterwards forbid any more public office holding – back to private enterprise or starvation for the lot of them.

  • “And making it easier to pass amendments means, by definition, the courts power is not absolute.”

    I doubt seriously that any constitutional amendment would have prevented the court majority from reading into the Constitution gay marriage. The problem is not in the Constitution but in the five who betrayed their oaths to the Constitution in order to enact their policy preference.

  • if a marriage amendment had been added beforehand, it would have. What’s more, for those worried about polygamy coming next, there is a simple solution….a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between two people. The cultural zeitgeist is such as that would probably pass now, even with the sheer number of votes required.

  • “if a marriage amendment had been added beforehand, it would have.”

    Lets not forget that the Supreme Court majority had no problem striking down state constitutional provisions in enacting gay marriage. If the Federal Constitution contained a ban on gay marriage, I am confident that they would still have enacted gay marriage and said that the gay marriage ban conflicted with other provisions of the Constitution and was unconstitutional. These people aren’t interpreting the Constitution anymore, they are making up a new one piece by piece.

  • I would bet serious money that if an amendment was added to the US constitution now that defined marriage as between two people, a future supreme court would not touch it. That would be the end of that.

  • Whatever you do in real life JS, I bet you are not an attorney. Any court that can read a right to abortion and gay marriage into the Constitution will not be stopped by any amendment to the Constitution, other than one which abolishes the Supreme Court,.

  • The mechanism for dealing with out of control judges is impeachment.

    Or I suppose we could just revive FDR’s court packing scheme.

  • I would bet serious money that if an amendment was added to the US constitution now that defined marriage as between two people, a future supreme court would not touch it.

    I’m in the bridge-vending business.

  • I would bet serious money that if an amendment was added to the US constitution now that defined marriage as between two people, a future supreme court would not touch it. That would be the end of that.

    Why two persons instead of a man and a woman? We have haploid gametes and a diploid genome. This is the natural science basis for the number two and a man and a woman. There are also several millenia of religious and cultural norms and, in the history of the United States, only one cultural and legal recognition of the form of marriage.

    If we are ignoring natural science in favor of subjective norms, such as individual wants and a feeling of ‘exclusion’, then rationally any gender and number of persons must form a marriage, if the persons so desire. For the Supreme Court to limit the institution of marriage to two by fiat is simply tyrannical. Trying to pass a constitutional amendment to set a ‘two persons’ rule would be appeasing the tyrant.

    “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” – Winston Churchill

  • Complaints about courts declaring laws unconstitutional have existed since the beginning of the Constitution. Yet it would be very easy to amend the Constution to say something like “The federal judiciary shall not declare Acts of Congress or of the legislatures of the several States to be unconstitutional.” Then why hasn’t that been done? Because everybody only wants that to happen only AFTER laws THEY dislike have been declared unconstitutional (e.g., National Firearms Act, Civil Rights Act, Selective Service Act, ObamaCare etc ad nausaum). That ain’t gonna happen. The current system is here for good. Act accordingly.

  • “Then why hasn’t that been done?”

    Because it is very difficult to amend the Constitution as set forth in that document, while it is very easy for the Supreme Court to illegitimately “amend” that same Constitution, something that august tribunal does frequently.

  • “I do not exist” wrote: “The current system is here for good. Act accordingly.”
    I agree and would add, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  • Complaints about courts declaring laws unconstitutional have existed since the beginning of the Constitution.

    No, they have not, because it was never done during the first 14 years the Constitution was in effect and there were only three instances of it in the entire ante-bellum era. If I’m not mistaken, there were only two dozen instances of state and federal laws invalidated in the 35 years after the Civil War, and these tended to turn on jurisdictional matters or legislation which interfered with freedom of contract (which, per Mary Ann Glendon, may have been invalid reasoning but incorporated strands which had an antique pedigree). Prior to 1954, the left tended to favor judicial deference because judicial scrutiny was commonly injurious to innovations in the ambo of federal regulatory and regulatory and welfare agencies. It simply is not true that appellate courts have for 200 years perambulated around annulling settled law willy-nilly.

  • The current system is here for good. Act accordingly.

    No, it’s here for as long as Congress and the state legislatures put up with it. The beginning of the end will be when Anthony Kennedy arrives at work with the rest of them and discovers the building is padlocked and the staff has been laid off because the funds appropriated for the court to operate have been impounded.

  • A cri de coeur plus a passing reference to the 14th amendment does not make a valid legal judgment.

Jesuitical 19: Fordham and Gay Marriage

Wednesday, July 8, AD 2015




Part 19 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Jesuit university Fordham disabuses Catholics deluded enough to believe that liberal Catholics have not, by and large, fully embraced the zeitgeist of the secular left:

The New York Times, which wrote up a glowing report of the couple’s marriage, described Hornbeck, as “the chairman of the theology department and an associate professor of medieval and reformation history at Fordham University.”

The article somehow failed to mention that the only course he actually taught last semester was titled “Christianity & Sexual Diversity.”

One wonders how Fordham expects its Catholic theology to be “taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium,” as required by Catholic discipline, when the head of the department stands in open opposition to the Church’s teaching on marriage.

The wedding ceremony took place just days before the Episcopal Church in America voted to allow same-sex marriage rites in its churches, effectively sacramentalizing sodomy.

Fordham in turn has defended Hornbeck’s “constitutional right to marriage,” saying that his lifestyle choice is irrelevant to his role as a teacher of Catholic Theology.

“While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications.

“Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation,” he said.

Howe stressed that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Jesuitical 19: Fordham and Gay Marriage

Jimmy Carter and the Mind of Christ

Wednesday, July 8, AD 2015

15 Responses to Jimmy Carter and the Mind of Christ

  • Would somebody please toss a gooey chunk of peanut butter into this old fool’s mouth to keep him from talking!?

  • Denying the partner’s immortal soul is damaging enough. The homosexual partners abuse themselves and do so outside of religion by embracing atheism. Atheism is unconstitutional because atheism is totalitarianism against everything of freedom especially the conscience of man and his freedom to be free. The will of the people to constitute a free nation is being uprooted by senile old men and a really totalitarian Supreme Court which has embraced international law and has become a laughingstock of the world. No self-respecting Jivero cannibal would consume a practicing homosexual or atheist lesbian.Their fear and the fear of Christian bakers, and florists is that atheism will overtake their freedom and they are justified in their fears.
    The atheist must be tolerated and religious freedom must be protected against the day when the atheist chooses to follow truth. Atheism allows a +-zero scintilla of freedom. Totalitarianism, the grandchild of atheism must be nipped in the bud, before the concentration camps.
    Hillary Clinton has promised to expunge the First Amendment without the three quarters of the states ratifying the change: “Deep seated Cultural Codes, religious beliefs have to be change…to accommodate Women’s Health Care”, read abortion, further read human sacrifice. The person of faith will be totally disenfranchised from his human right to freedom to relate to his Creator in thought, word, deed and peaceable assembly. The man of faith will be disenfranchised of his freedom to direct his life in the wisdom of his conscience. The person who respects human life will not be allowed into the public square which he owns in joint and common tenancy with all other persons. He will be ostracized from social discourse, his possessions seized, his privacy violated and he will be persecuted.
    Hillary Clinton wrote Hillarycare when Bill Clinton swore to represent us as his constituents. Hillary prescribed two years in federal prison for any doctor who dared to heal a sick man without her permission. Hillary criminalized a vocation to heal people. Hillary owns ten healthcare providing corporations. The scene will not change much if Hillary assumes the presidency. “We, the people” will be forced to pay for all abortions, the scraping of the human soul from the womb, human experimentation, transhumanism, the replacing of human body parts with bionic parts, transgenderism, the Caitlin Jenner syndrome and anything the atheist can think of, without having the voice of the people heard. The will of the people will be ignored and the voice of the people will be silenced. Atheism will be completely imposed.

  • None of this is surprising. Carter has always viewed God as being in lockstep with his views, even as those views have changed during his life. For Jimmy Carter Christianity has always been about worshiping a God who, mirable dictum!, always has the same beliefs as James Earl Carter, Jr.

    I don’t know about that. Carter’s vanity generates a certain stubbornness. However, he has in recent years seemed very receptive to the kudos of repellant characters and willing to associate with them in silly enterprises (Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu). You get the impression that a mess of his vigorous charity work is a means for a man addled by bouts of narcissism to chase accolades. For such a person, antagonism from bien-pensants generates abrasions. What differentiates the young from the old is not what they’ve experienced but what they haven’t, and anyone Carter’s age has lived through several iterations of how homosexuality is treated in law, social relations, and culture (as has anyone your age or mine). You’d think that might generate some resistance to the Latest Thing even if Sacred Scripture did not. Then again, a great many of the old find the vehemently stated opinions of the young a bore; others toady up to them.

    Wendell Berry was a bigger disappointment.

  • Oh, by the way, you’re now seeing these private revelations (with somewhat more trumpery) offered by evangelical hackademics and religio-entrepreneurs. With the older generation shuffling off (think Jerry Falwell or Charles Colson), evangelical pew-sitters are discovering more rot than they ever knew in their intelligentsia.

  • Matt 19:4 ….’Have you not read’ [good Jimmy?] are you that ignorant the Master asks ? or are you so blatantly politically expedient to pretend the Christ Himself would contradict His Father , in order to appear complicit with democrat miscreants? really jimmy, have you no shame?…. you are no fool , but an old grinning georgian democrat who recalls to mind the great hypocritical Byrds of Virginia!! …….. jimmy could probably rationalize slavery too!

  • ” If there is conversion in Carter Christianity, it involves God catching up with the views of Jimmy.”

    This is what happens when narcissism gets religion. It ends in a situation with two gods, and one of them has got to give. When confronted with “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” the self-love of narcissism must alter God to be a mirror of the self to accomplish this.

  • Carter was addle-brained almost 40 years ago when he was wrecking the World in the WH. At 90, he’s far-gone. Here, he’s channeling Satan and calling it Jesus’s opinion. Soon enough he’s see death, judgment and (God help him) Hell. Pathetic.
    Seen on Instapundit: Santa Claus is a democrat; God Almighty is a Regan-Republican (not including losers like all the Bushes and cowards like Boehner, McCain and Romney).

  • Have you guys never read the Jimmy Carter Study Bble, second only to the CI Scofield Study Bible?
    I have no words that can descibe how I feel. T. Shaw says it all.

  • What a peanut head!

  • No evil is ever done (or approved of) without first painting it with a gilded halo. It’s been that way since at least Satan’s quoting God’s scripture to Christ in the desert.
    God can never be on a different page than the liberal, for then God would have to be wrong or in need of re-education.
    God help these arrogant people change before judgment time or they’ll spend a lot of time with a mess of other folks who try to convert God to their sinful ways..

  • It’s a good thing that people are coming out and showing their colors. It clarifies the size and scope of the spiritual and cultural struggle. We begin to see where cultural, media, church, party leaders really stand and what they are made of. Anyone else who wants to step forward— show yourself.

  • I live my life by God’s law not man’s!!! I wish that God would bring an end to his sinful world and have his final judgement. I guess then we will know what God things of Gay’s and gay married.

  • I remember reading a commentator talking about the delight on Carter’s face as he was being praised at the Democratic Convention. No adult should ever look that happy over a compliment. It was unseemly. I think Art’s right on the money: he’s a narcissist chasing accolades.

  • Jimmy Carter is a good example of what happens to people who reject Jesus Christ.

  • Mr Jimmy Carter you are wrong, wrong and wrong.
    And as a christian you need to repent quickly


Wednesday, July 8, AD 2015



Co-blogger Darwin has a remarkably clear sighted post at his blog which lays out just how the Church will come under attack in the wake of the Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage:


There’s a group out there which is very, very determined to win cultural and moral legitimacy for homosexual relationships, and to punish those who do not share those beliefs. Currently that group is at the cultural helm. In time, it will crumble and lose its ascendancy simply because it is not compatible with the realities of human nature. However, until that happens, the marriage equality group will not be satisfied by seeing Catholic priests stop signing civil marriage licenses, while continuing to celebrate religious marriage ceremonies only for opposite sex couples.  They’re not stupid, and it’s recognition they want, not getting priests to stop signing a form for straight couples.  Nor would “separating” civil and religious marriage be coherent from a Catholic point of view. Indeed, a non-Catholic couple who get married in front of a city clerk are (absent obstacles such as already being married to someone else or being of the same sex) viewed by the Church as being married, since the Church does not recognize there as being two levels of marriage.  So the idea of “getting out of the civil marriage business” fails to protect us from the looming threat, while at the same time abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage.  There is no reason to do it.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Bingo

  • I believe the separation of the civil and religious aspects of marriage to be desirable in itself.

    Marriage affects civil status, not only of the parties, but of any children they may have. The rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father, a rule that the French Senate declared “is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value” and that is enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code.

    This rule is concerned with purely civil matters, the upbringing and welfare of the child, protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and the orderly succession to property. It makes republican marriage “a pillar of the lay republic,” standing clear of the religious sacrament.

    This is why the Code Pénal Art 433-21 forbids ministers of religion to conduct marriage ceremonies for couples not legally married, as an attack on civil status. This rests on the constitutional principle that “No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.”

    I am told that much soul-searching goes into deciding who is invited to « le mariage » at the mairie, to « la bénédiction nuptiale » in church, and the favoured few invited or to both. It can involve formidable logistical problems.

  • Atheism is at the heart of same sex marriage. The proponents of same sex marriage must deny the rational, immortal human soul and its endowed freedoms to embrace the evil of sodomy. Atheistic sodomy and lesbianism must be devoid of anything holy or admitting of God or the eternal life or any reality of love. The imposition of atheism has already begun to remove any vestige of conscience and human freedom from man. The atheist has taken man by the neck and set his boot on his face, and man has become a beast of burden to the very state he has constituted with his sovereign personhood.

  • I am thinking that I do not like this persecution thing. And when I find my backbone I will resist untruth, lies, perjury, indecency and injustice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg performed same sex weddings before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision automatically recusing herself, leaving the Court with a 4 to 4 decision. This would require, nay demand, that the voice of the people be heard at the ballot box to repulse any imposition of tyranny upon the people. But the Court assumed its sovereignty over the people and inflicted its version of atheism, the denial of the human being, body and soul. The immortal, rational human soul that separates man from the animals is reduced to hearsay in the Court and man is reduced to a beast of burden; taxation without representation, in atheism as an individual citizen with no soul…the court’s version of Frankenstein. “I AM” not to be subjected to atheism. My Creator told me so, in the Ten Commandments.

  • Legally, a church — certainly not a Catholic church — is not a place of public accommodation. (Try suing the Mormons because they won’t let you undergo their secret initiation.) In order for this scenario to happen, 14th amendment jurisprudence would have to be overturned, and the 1st Amendment repealed. They can accomplish much mischief around the edges, but I think they have their symbolic victory. I suppose you could argue, “Well, judges can do whatever they want,” which is theoretically true, but they have an interest, too, in not completely throwing the legal system overboard. So I don’t see it. A first year law student could defeat such a claim.

  • I would have agreed with you my Bruin friend until after the gay marriage decision was handed down. I believe we crossed a line there, where a majority of the court isn’t really pretending anymore that they are interpreting the Constitution rather than making it up as they go along. In the past, even in Roe, they had the good grace to pretend otherwise.

  • The Bear wrote, “Legally, a church — certainly not a Catholic church — is not a place of public accommodation”

    Leaving aside established churches, which are, in any event, irrelevant in the American context, a church is simply a voluntary association, on all fours with a trade union, the governing body of a sport, a literary society or a football supporters’ club.

    The rules of the club (written or customary) constitute a contract between each member and all the rest and contain a term, express or implied, that the members will abide by the decisions of the governing body, in the administration of its affairs.

    Usually, a member can only raise an action on the contract where some patrimonial interest is involved, such as the expulsion of a trade union member, leading to the loss of his employment or the refusal of the Jockey Club to renew a trainer’s licence, or the suspension sine die of a church minister, involving the loss of his manse and stipend.

    Thus, the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) had no civil remedy, when his church, the Wee Frees, excommunicated him for attending a requiem mass for Lord Wheatley, the former Lord Justice-Clerk in 1988.

  • I believe we crossed a line there, where a majority of the court isn’t really pretending anymore that they are interpreting the Constitution rather than making it up as they go along. In the past, even in Roe, they had the good grace to pretend otherwise.
    Again, no more appropriations. And if Mr. Justice Breyer wants the salary that constitutional language says he’s entitled to, mail him a copy of his most recent judicial opinion about capital sentences (also referred to in explicit constitutional language). If he complains again, send him a hospital menu and he can choose whether he wants $244,000 worth of macaroni salad, mashed potatoes, or dry little half-dollar hamburger patties.

  • If you are right, then it really will be the moment to remember H.L. Mencken, and spit on our hands, raise the black flag, and start slitting throats. (Note to the overly literate: this is a quote not to be taken seriously. By humans.)

  • I have a feeling that Pope “who am I to judge” Francis would not have a problem with marrying a same sex couple. Anyone have the same thought?

  • Michael, that you can seriously ask that question defines the problem. Personally, I don’t believe he would do that. I think he is a stubborn, “progressive” bishop that is from a problematical area of the world, and a country with a particularly odd history. (Sorry, but that’s the way way I see it.) He has VERY idiosyncratic ideas and obviously does not see himself in the “hermeneutic of continuity” LOL. He wants to use what limited time he has to jam through as many changes as he can get away with, and that is why he cultivates his public image the way he does.

  • The Bear. I hope you are right, of course. But my belief is Pope Francis has a very “advanced”–Pierre Teilhard deChardin–view of what it means to be a Catholic which would find gay marriage quite acceptable as we all evolve together to a heaven on earth.

  • Were he employed in some non-commercial occupation in New York, you’d say there was nothing idiosyncratic about him. The only oddity is that he’s a Catholic clergyman of some consequence.

  • Actually the next attack won’t be the direct frontline assault of demanding clergy marry homosexuals. The attacks will be flanking maneuvers but with serious consequences. The tax status of the Church can be administratively challenged by the IRS (see Bob Jones University). Or, it may be challenged by legislation or the new post constitutuional means of executive fiat. In any event, this will happen. It’s not that the Church, and its affiliated organizations such as schools, hospitals, food banks, etc, will pay a tax on any profit, as none will be shown. Rather your contributions will not be qualified as a deduction and so good, loyal Catholics who are generous in the Spirit will be paying the equivalent of a recusant tax.

    Also, I noticed in our church bulletin this Sunday that our parish school accepts Agricultue Departmemt funding for some sort of food or dairy product….so in the bulletin was a required DOA notice that we do not discriminate on the basis of……gender identity or preference. Thus, along with the tax issue, the issue of accepting the kimg’s shilling will become a hedge weapon to separate our institutions from our Faith. But hey, we can blame global warming….it’s all interrelated.

  • Is the Benedict option really “a delusional retreat from the world”? When the Oregon state government fines Christian bakers hundreds of thousands of dollars, what else are we supposed to do?

  • Fight, and there are many ways of fighting. The Bakers who were fined 135,000 have raised 201,000. Additionally, our enemies are not going to allow us to retreat peacefully from the world, so it is a dead proposition from the start. Finally, Catholics are not Amish. We are out to convert the world, not to maintain a small sect of believers. Catholics need to man up, get a grip, stop whining and start fighting!

  • Like the state that is constituted by “We, the people” who are every person since our nation was founded by George Washington et al, our ancestors, this generation and all future generations of American citizens, our constitutional posterity, the Catholic Church too, is all triumphant in heaven, the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant here on earth and the Church Suffering, those poor souls in purgatory beyond the reach of of corrupt government.The Church is more than a place of accommodation. The church is the people. The people hold the legacy from the Saints in heaven, the trust of the parishioners on earth (IN GOD WE TRUST) and the inheritance of the future generations of Catholics. Imposing atheism, which is what Obergofell v. Hodges did, and must happen to eradicate the truth of our Creator and the sovereign personhood of the individual person. There is no person who can replace an infinite God. The devil is not an atheist. Atheism must be imposed to remove the sovereign personhood of the citizen

  • No business proprietor must accommodate a sodomite. Accommodation laws cannot force another person to countenance a sodomite. A gay wedding ceremony is a promise to perform sodomy. Accommodation laws are based on the sovereign citizen. Sodomites relinquish their sovereignty by performing sodomy. The question business proprietors must ask of their customers is: “Are you a sodomite?” A sign in the window might say: “NO SODOMITES SERVED”. The Court may redefine the conjugal act, but sodomy cannot be forced onto the people. Atheism cannot be forced on the people. Satanism cannot be forced on the people. Equal Justice precludes half truths.

  • The gay gestapo constitute about 3% of we the people. They have the active support of about 20% of we the people that are the hate-filled, intolerant liberals who need to destroy the Church because it’s Object Truth and the Supremacy of God Almighty are the main roadblocks to the people’s enslavement to the totalitarian state. Peace and justice!

  • T Shaw wrote, “The gay gestapo constitute about 3% of we the people. They have the active support of about 20% of we the people…”

    The Irish referendum is interesting in this respect. To nearly 40% (39.48%) of the electorate, the result was a matter of supine indifference, for the turnout was only 60.52%. Compare that with the 80.35% turnout in the 2012 French Presidential election, with the media lamenting that the “missing 20%” spelled the end of democracy or the 84.5% who voted in the Independence referendum in Scotland.

    Of the 60.52% who bothered to vote, 62.07 voted in favour of SSM, that is 37.56% of eligible voters. Only 22.95% of the electorate, or a little over one-fifth, felt strongly enough to register their opposition.

    Do you imagine the figures in the US would be very different?

The Supreme Court: A Danger to American Democracy

Friday, June 26, AD 2015


All of Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial opinions tend to be memorable, but I think his dissent in OBERGEFELL v. HODGES will perhaps be his most cited opinion in what I expect to be a dangerous time for the American Republic over the next few decades.  Here are quotes from his dissent to remember:

1.  It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.  Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. 

2.  This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

3.   Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

4.  This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.  Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

5.   The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. 

6.  But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.  The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not.

7.  These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

8.  The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

9. Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.  The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”  With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to The Supreme Court: A Danger to American Democracy

  • You left out the best part in footnote 22: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

  • Roberts’ two Obamacare decisions accelerated the post constitutional era. After those decisions it became apparent that henceforth the constitution could be treated as yesterday’s news. Scalia captures the urgency of the moment and something which has nothing to do with the merits of the issue. Federalism is dead. Freedom of political speech….dead. Freedom in the exercise of religion….dead. The second act of the post constitutional era starts now and it will be ugly. There are the obvious things like church tax status, mandated school gender curriculum, etc, but there is the 5 to 10 year wave of assaults such as shutting down this website and others over “hate speech”. You must understand this is not about homosexuals, but about the 100 year progressive war against the restraints on government power once expressed in the Constitution. Next up…..the final assault on the family.

  • Since performing gay marriage ceremonies BEFORE the decision didn’t require Justices Ginsberg & Kagan to recuse themselves in this case will someone, please, invite Justice Scalia to keynote the next Pro-Life conference? He’s a great speaker, and no conflict of interest would exist.

  • “I would hide my head in a bag.”

    Quite right David. That is one for the ages.

  • Within the past 5 minutes a small statue within our house of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for no apparent cause, fell and broke in two.

  • Donald—you blogged about the juvenile reaction by corporatist to the Conferate battle flag. Watch next what happens in Hollywood and the business world. Some of this takes place now but it will be far worse

    Signed pledges upholding homosexual or gender diversity
    Corporate retailers restricting business with churches
    Unmitigated Hollywood attacks and refusal by investors to finance faith based movies
    Government contractors will be required to have homosexual happy talks
    The litigation business will flourish with the grievances of homosexualists…..and woe be to the litigation lawyer who refuses to undertake representation for claims of homosexual grievances

    The imagination for attack on those churches which refuse to submit will know no bounds. And unlike abortion, speech against the homosexual agenda can be targeted regardless of Kennedy’s weak deference to what he described as acceptable religious “advocacy”. When you read Kennedy’s Windsor opininoin on DOMA the outcome of the fight between religious freedom vs homosexual “marriage” is beyond worrisome…..almost foregone.

  • Oh, I think the Homosexual Movement has its high tide today, just as the pro-abort movement had it with Roe. The decision today by the Court I believe will re-energize social conservatives. We shall see.

    Oh, and Apple, hit by a lot of negative publicity, is beginning to walk back its ban:


    Social conservatives have to realize that we are in a long term fight and fight smart. For those who support traditional marriage, lessons learned in the long fight against abortion are instructive. Above all let us be of good cheer, and go happily about our task. God placed us in this time for a purpose, and we must not disappoint Him by being downcast and fearful. Let gloom and despair be present only among the Devil and his disciples!

  • Thanks. I needed a foxhole slap in the head. Tough two weeks.

  • The danger of SCOTUS to the Republic has existed since the Dred Scott decision. When it counts, SCOTUS can be depended on to decide wrong.

  • Clearly the republic that is the US is not working [I have concluded for some time now that it couldn’t because it was flawed from its very inception]. If there was any republic that looked like it would it was the US, my question then is if there is any man-made republic that can work.

  • Face it. We r a post constitutional country. Self gov’t died with the SCOTUScare ruling where the majority of SCOTUS let us know that it didn’t matter WHAT we wrote into our laws–that 5 lawyers on that court wud be telling over 300 million of us how we will live–under the coercive force of govt. I hope we don’t end up in another civil war–but I seriously expect it.

  • “Lincoln’s rejection of the Dred Scott decision’s account of congressional authority was not intended as a mere theoretical exercise. His aim was not to see his counter-argument published in a learned journal. Rather, he made this rejection the basis of proposed political resistance to the Court’s overreaching…Just as the Taney Court told Americans in the 1850s that they were not permitted to govern themselves on the slavery issue, so today Justice Kennedy and his liberal collaborators on the Court are presuming to tell the present generation of Americans that they have no right to self-government on the question of defining marriage. That weighty question, they are telling us, will be decided by our betters—that is, by them.”


  • “Yet at the heart of the Civil War, the crisis that triggered it, and the changes that it brought were enormous constitutional issues. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the Civil War was fought over the meaning of the Constitution, and over who would have the ultimate power to decide that meaning. The Civil War decided—on the battlefields rather than in the courts—the most important constitutional questions in our nation’s history: the nature of the Union under the Constitution, the status and future of slavery, the powers of the national government versus the states, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the wartime powers of the president as commander in chief. It was the Civil War, not any subsequent judicial decision, that “overruled” the Supreme Court’s atrocious decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford creating a national constitutional right to own slaves.”


  • “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man thanthat which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” –Thomas Jefferson to New
    London Methodist, 1809.

  • TX Gov Abbott is showing the rest if them up. I know my gov locales in comparison to him at this point of the game.


  • “Clearly the republic that is the US is not working [I have concluded for some time now that it couldn’t because it was flawed from its very inception]. If there was any republic that looked like it would it was the US, my question then is if there is any man-made republic that can work.”

    Our republic works just fine when it is tried…the 3 branches do their jobs…citizens do their part– greed, power, ambition, lack of the application of moral, lack of the citizenry paying attention, etc have all damaged the function of our republic until it has died a slow gasping death.

    Thomas Jefferson forsake this very type of Judicial tyranny & Abe Lincoln defined it for us as well.

    It seems to be the very sin nature of man that has brought our republic down.


    Abe Lincoln predicted that a court that was allowed to legislate from the bench would lead to tyranny in his 1st Inaugural address.

    “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    In the article below, it is argued that an improper/weak response of the other 2 branches of govt to activist courts is the cause of the republic’s downfall. I think that point has great validity. like pastors hiding behind their tax exempt status to avoid controversy and needed confrontation with the culture, politicians have often hid behind a court ruling out of weakness & to avoid taking full responsibility for the authority given them under the law. It really is easier, at least on the front end, to let others be responsible for the tough calls of freedom.


    John Adams said the following: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

    Benjamin Franklin is often having indicated that our republic would endure until the people started voting themselves other people’s money.

    I, personally, believe the failures/destruction of the family and the failure of common k-12 education due to federal meddling are enough over time to bring us down.

    We are literally dealing with all of these issues and more–at the same time.

  • Judicial activism has been a threat to American liberty for decades. It started long before Roberts was named Chief Justice.

    I am almost 52. I remember the court-ordered school desegregation cases in the 1970s as I was in school myself then. There were riots in Boston. One city after another lost school desegregation cases, followed by court-ordered busing of schoolkids across cities. Massive middle class flight ensued. Busing was a failure.

    Roe v Wade was ruled under false pretense. There was the Kelo decision empowering government to seize private property.

    Kennedy, the dimwitted intellectual lightweight that he is, has taken it upon himself to legitimize everything about homosexuality. There was the Texas sodomy decision and now this.

  • If what you really want is a democracy, try the British system:-
    1) The fundamental principle is that Parliament (the Legislative branch) can make and unmake any law whatsoever.
    2) The Cabinet (the Executive branch) is a committee of the Legislature that the Lower House can dismiss at pleasure by a vote of no confidence.
    3) In the event of a vote of no confidence, or if the Legislature will not pass his measures, the Prime Minister (the head of the Executive) can” go to the country,” that is, call a general election and invite the voters to return members who will back him, which the voters may or may not do.
    The “checks and balances” are provided by the Executive’s fear of losing its majority and the individual members’ fear of losing their seats in a snap election.

  • That’s not gonna happen here, Mr. Paterson-Seymour.

  • Five black-robed nitwits think they have authority to reverse 25,000 years of human biology, culture, and society.
    The SC effectively ruled that a dog’s tail is a leg. However, the mongrel still has only four legs.
    Yesterday, the idiots consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I no longer consent to be ruled.
    And, America have fully entered the post-Constitution era and it will not be pretty.

  • Penguins Fan wrote, “That’s not gonna happen here, Mr. Paterson-Seymour.”
    I know.
    For historical reasons, to an American, freedom primarily means being free from interference, especially government interference and a strong government is feared as a threat to freedom.
    Europeans, by contrast, see government action as the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Of course, Europeans can be very readily persuaded that self-serving deputies are betraying the people’s mandate, in the service of special interests; in fact, the political class is held in great contempt. Nevertheless, no one believes that curbing the powers of government is desirable, or even imaginable: the government is the appointee and agent of the people; to curb the government’s powers is to curb their own.

  • The ACLU quietly announced that it would no longer support religious freedom. The DOJ is questioning whether Church’s that disagree or do not support homosexuality should keep their Tax Exemption. The Quisling, Ted Olson will now focus on having the Bible proclaimed hate speech as they have in parts of Canada. And with very little fan fare the liberals in congress will force through legislation lowering the age of consent to 12 years old.
    “Liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle”

  • Since the Supreme Court has become merely a political body that talks about law–politicians with robes for credibility—I suggest we do away with it, as we already have politicians ignoring law in our other bodies of government.
    For this we had a revolution?
    Long live the king!

  • The Legislature surrenders its prerogative to the Executive who acts in its stead, while the Supreme Court usurps the prerogative of the Supreme Being. What could go wrong?

  • There is more defeatism here than on the designated defeatism thread!
    I am glad there is some love expressed for mystical aphorisms. I must admit it as a new favorite of mine.

    I for one would like to get a notebook and write down all of the predictions made here and see how many end up coming true. That will be the point for agony and despair.

  • @Barbara Gordon: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.

  • Our federal government, and many of our state governments, are losing more and more legitimacy. We are not bound to obey an unjust law. My question is how far are we obligated to obey an illegitimate government? It seems that in some cases we must do so only insofar as they have a partial measure of legitimacy and rule justly. In other cases we would be required to resist an illegitimate government to the full extent we are able to, as happened during the Cristero War in Mexico. I think we are at the first point right now. We can safely just ignore the government on those points where it violates morality and justice. Unfortunately, the government is moving to the point where we may need to find a little bit of Cristero in all of us. I pray it doesn’t reach that point.

  • If possible, emigrate to a fiscally-solvent red state with a limited, rational state government.

    Feign obedience and covertly resist in every possible way.
    The national regime is post-Constitutional. It has usurped far too much power. All three branches of the Federal government are bat-crap crazy/stupid. Everything they touch will be wrecked.
    You need to plan and prepare for the “zombie” apocalypse, which by comparison will make look like Eden the Great Depression and post-WWII Germany and Japan. There will be no Marshall Plan.

  • I suggest we do away with it, as we already have politicians ignoring law in our other bodies of government.

    It’s quite simple. Within the law, the Congress determines the jurisdictions of the courts. From now on the troublesome appellate courts will each have as their jurisdiction one square yard in the middle of Sunset Blvd. Within the law, the courts do not operate without appropriations. Staff, what staff Mr. Justice Roberts? No staff, plant, or equipment. Within the law, they all get paid in potatoes once a year. Not within the law (but they cannot complain without being laughed at), they’re all declared in a state of bad behavior by a joint resolution of Congress and exiled via bill of attainder to Argentina. Of course, the Republican caucus in Congress would never have the cojones to do any of this.

  • Our federal government, and many of our state governments, are losing more and more legitimacy

    Yes. Never in my lifetime (and, I think it might be said) not for a verrry long time has public life been so suffused with humbug. I doubt an honest word is ever uttered anymore outside of odd little corners like this one and the object of the opposition is not persuasion but humiliation to render the resistant complicit. It is all coming to a head when this country needs our most capable and prudent men in charge and the men in charge are vain fools like Anthony Kennedy and crudniks like John Koskinen.

  • in fact, the political class is held in great contempt. Nevertheless, no one believes that curbing the powers of government is desirable, or even imaginable: the government is the appointee and agent of the people; to curb the government’s powers is to curb their own.

    And your point is what, that Europe is populated with people who cannot recognize a logical contradiction?

Ten Thoughts on the Irish Debacle

Monday, May 25, AD 2015


Now that Ireland has voted to approve gay marriage, a few thoughts:

1.   Catholic Ireland is now Anti-Catholic Ireland-The Irish have always found scapegoats useful as an explanation for Irish failings.  Britain long played this role and the Church is now filling this role.  This vote, for many of the voters, was a joyous opportunity to give a one finger salute to the faith of their ancestors.

2.   Spineless Shepherds-With one or two exceptions, the Irish episcopate was worse than useless.  Cowardice was their most notable attribute.  Expecting these timeservers to stand up for Catholicism in a hostile environment is like expecting a wolf to become a vegetarian.

3.   Pope-MIA-The Pope has endless time to waste on made up problems like global warming, and to make snide remarks about faithful Catholics, but he uttered not a word on this vote.  In the current feeble state of the Church in the face of her enemies, the fish does rot from the head down.

4.   No Representation-All the major parties in Ireland backed gay marriage, so the 38% of the Irish people who voted against it, a huge block of voters in a proportional parliamentary system like Ireland, effectively have no political voice.

5.   Iron Triangle-In Ireland government, academia and entertainment were all overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage.  The group think on this issue makes the old Iron Curtain countries seem diverse in comparison.

Continue reading...

54 Responses to Ten Thoughts on the Irish Debacle

  • Spot on, Don.

    One has to consider, since homosexuals are only about 1.6% of the population, but have such enormous support in all the social institutions you mentioned, and a strong 5th Column in the Church, whether the whole “gay rights” movement is not simply a vehicle being used by the Left to crush religion, particularly the Catholic Church.

    The sad and comic truth is that only a fraction of that 1.6% are remotely interested in “marriage.” The whole issue has been a sham in order to advance a much broader, more socially destructive agenda. This has only been the opening chapter.

    Poor Ireland. What a weasly betrayal of the brave men who achieved her independence and enshrined acknowledgement of the Holy Trinity and respect for the Church in her constitution.

  • “This battle will continue until the gay activists are defeated, or until religious freedom is a thing of the past.”
    This battle will continue until Rider on the White Horse defeats the Beast and its armies in Revelation 19:11-21. The devil knows his time grows short and we are seeing the coils of the great snake constrict as many as he can into lifelessness before the coming agony of his defeat.

  • “What a weasly betrayal of the brave men who achieved her independence and enshrined acknowledgement of the Holy Trinity and respect for the Church in her constitution.”


  • Will the Pope now declare those Irish who voted for gay marriage to be de facto excommunicated, or will he say “Who am I to judge.”

  • The Catholic Church grants annulments to a married couple, a man and a wife who do not consummate the marital act. An annulment means that there never was a marriage. This defines marriage as the consummation of the marital act. Sodomy does not constitute the consummation of the marital act. Ireland has lost its mind.
    The man and the woman consummate the marital act and consummate the marriage. The court, the voting public, the majority of voters do not a marriage make. Only the man and the woman who consummate the marital act make marriage. No decree by the courts, or legislation can make marriage. Only the man and the woman who consummate the marital act make marriage. I said that already.

  • William P. Walsh said: “•barbarian hordes would never obtain sway in his Church;”

  • The Most Rev. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin expressed the Church’s teaching on the Referendum question very clearly, when he said, What is the current understanding of the male/female relationship in the Irish Constitution and would this be changed in the Referendum? There is no formal definition of marriage in the Constitution, but the consistent legal interpretation of the Constitution is that it refers to a marriage between a man and a woman and that this recognition is fundamental and goes beyond any particular understanding of marriage that may have existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. There are legal scholars who maintain that there is no need for a referendum and that the legislature could change a definition of marriage. The government has clearly thought otherwise in stressing that what is proposed requires a referendum. For the Constitution, a referendum is not a public opinion survey, but is required only when the Constitution is being changed and what we are being asked to change is an article of the Constitution on marriage. It is a question of changing.
    Is the proposal simply to extend accessibility to marriage or is it a real change in the definition of marriage which has significance for all citizens? You cannot take one article of the Constitution in isolation. Marriage is not simply about a wedding ceremony or about two people being in love with each other. Marriage, in the Constitution, is linked with the family and with a concept of family and to the mutuality of man and women which is the fundamental foundation for the family as it exists in the constitution today. Such fundamental questions about the good of society are clearly the concern of all.”

  • “As the vote looms that will decide whether Ireland as a country will redefine marriage, the archbishop of Dublin is saying that while he intends to vote against same-sex “marriage,” he’s not telling other Catholics how to vote.

    Archbishop Diarmuid Martin would not comment when asked about the stance of those Catholics who would vote in favor of homosexual “marriage” in Friday’s referendum, stating through a spokesperson it was not his policy “to tell others how to vote.”

    However the archbishop stressed “that people should be informed.””

    As the vote looms that will decide whether Ireland as a country will redefine marriage, the archbishop of Dublin is saying that while he intends to vote against same-sex “marriage,” he’s not telling other Catholics how to vote.

    Archbishop Diarmuid Martin would not comment when asked about the stance of those Catholics who would vote in favor of homosexual “marriage” in Friday’s referendum, stating through a spokesperson it was not his policy “to tell others how to vote.”

    However the archbishop stressed “that people should be informed.”

    “Archbishop Martin has publicly stated how he intends to vote and why,” his spokeswoman told the Irish Times. “It is not his policy, however, to tell others how to vote except to stress that, given the importance of marriage and the family, decisions should not be taken lightly and that people should be informed of what is involved.”



  • Mary de Voe wrote “This defines marriage as the consummation of the marital act.”

    No, for Ulpian says in the Digest, “Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit” [It is not sleeping together, but agreement that makes marriage. (Dig. 50.17.30 Ulpianus 36 ad sab) He also says a “bare consent” is sufficient to constitute marriage (“Sufficit nudus consensus ad constituenda sponsalia.” Dig. 23.1.4. pr.Ulpianus 35 ad sab.) As the great English legal historian, F W Maitland put it, “We must distinguish between the perfection of a legal act and the fulfilment of obligations which that act creates.”

    In his famous letter written to the Bulgarian prince Boris I in 866, Pope Nicholas I takes the same view, “according to the laws (leges), the consent of those whose union is arranged should be sufficient. If that alone is absent, all the other solemnities, even including coition, are in vain, as the great teacher John Chrysostom attests, who says: Not intercourse but will makes marriage” (Homilies on Matthew 32) [PL 119, no. 97, pp. 978–1016 at 980 ] Similarly, Pope Alexander III in answering a case propounded to him by the Archbishop of Salerno, declared that if consent de praesenti [“de præsenti” is, of course, an ellipsis for “de præsenti tempore” – “words in the present tense”] was expressed by such words as these “I accept you as mine.,” “and I accept you as mine”, whether an oath was interponed or not it was unlawful for the woman to marry another and if she should contract a second engagement by promise even although followed by sexual intercourse she should be separated from the second and should return to the first husband. [Corpus Juris Canonici Decretales Gregory IX lib iv tit iv cap iii]

    Non-Consummation may be treated as evidence of incapacity, leading to an annulment or the marriage may be dissolved, for example by taking solemn vows. Thus the Council of Trent, “If any one says, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married parties; let him be anathema” (Sess XXIV c 6)

  • Ireland voted to legalize gay marriage. Any complaint coming into the court about church or priest, must first reject the sitting judge in the case, who has the legal authority to perform the travesty. The lawsuit that overlooks the judge’s legal authority to perform the “same-sex marriage” is nothing more that a demand to own another person, the priest and the Catholic Church. To coerce business proprietors to perform and celebrate same-sex wedding facilitation is another maneuver to own another person as a slave. If there is one business that serves the same-sex weddings, there can be no lawsuit. as the same-sex couple can go there, and their complaint is invalid if they refuse to patronize the business that may serve them. They are not being denied by state regulated businesses. In the Melissa Sweet Cakes, the court destroyed their livelihood, while the same-sex couple went and were served by same-sex bakers else where. The same-sex couple were not denied by state regulated businesses. Spiritual murder is a very serious offense.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “In his famous letter written to the Bulgarian prince Boris I in 866, Pope Nicholas I takes the same view, “according to the laws (leges), the consent of those whose union is arranged should be sufficient. If that alone is absent, all the other solemnities, even including coition, are in vain, as the great teacher John Chrysostom attests, who says: Not intercourse but will makes marriage””

    Both Pope Nicholas and John Chrysostom were writing about the valid consent of man and woman to proceed into coition. The fact remains that two men cannot consummate coition, nor the marital act, nor the consummation of the marital act no more that I can consent or will to stop the world from its orbit.
    Both Pope Nicholas and John Chrysostom validated the definition of marriage as consent between a man and a woman. Consent between two persons of the same sex is lacking the object, the marriage, to which they are consenting.

  • I’m not surprised when one takes into account Bergoglio’s
    favorable statements concerning sodomites. Clergymen, who
    oppose the anti-Christian gay agenda, could place themselves
    at the displeasure of the merciful Bergoglio.

  • Consenting adults is the fulcrum and the lever that has moved sodomy and same-sex-marriage into the culture as victimless free will choices. After Vatican II I was told in the confessional that anything a husband and wife do in bed is legally and morally acceptable. NO. Sodomy by any individual is assault and battery of the other person, abuse of the colon. Informed sexual consent by the individual or by two or three consenting adults excludes sodomy, masturbation, assault and battery, assisted suicide, sado-masochism and snuff films, where the heroine actually is killed.
    Informed sexual consent does not exhonorate a person from making a criminal choice and from the evil consequences. Two persons plotting to commit homicide are not exempt from their crime by consent. Neither are persons exempt from their sins and crimes by consenting to commit these crimes. Persons who consent to commit sins and crimes or give assent to the crimes other persons are committing, make them guilty of supporting evil and the devil.
    Homosexuality has always been defined as “arrested sexual development”. All people pass through some same sex attraction at puberty. Some people do not physically mature into heterosexuality. Two or ten homosexuals cannot give informed sexual consent since they do not have informed sexual consent. Two or ten homosexuals can only give “arrested sexual development consent”. Their infirmity excludes same sex marriage because of their “arrested sexual development consent’. If anyone had and has informed sexual consent they would not be militating for same sex marriage. Their situation exhibits their problem. There is no informed sexual consent from two individuals for same sex marriage. Two consenting adults cannot give consent to any sin or crime. Masturbation times two is still self-abuse. The culture and the Courts have lost all credibility on consent, with 50 shades of Grey, consenting to assault and battery, legalizing pornography, and the inability of the Court to differentiate between truth and perjury. A male wife is perjury in a court of law.
    Under the logic of consent, no crime is prosecutable.

  • Ireland’s fate is sealed.

    “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” – Ruth, Billy Graham’s wife.

    Substitute America with Ireland.
    God bless and remember constituency Roscommon-South Leitrim and its people.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “ There is no formal definition of marriage in the Constitution, but the consistent legal interpretation of the Constitution is that it refers to a marriage between a man and a woman and that this recognition is fundamental and goes beyond any particular understanding of marriage that may have existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution.”
    The U.S. Constitution may be interpreted for the single individual, or for corporate persons as single individuals. A married couple, a husband and wife are judged as a single person. Two persons of the same sex come before the court and demand to be judged as a single individual. The married couple became one through their consent to marriage. The same sex couple remain two different people, because they cannot consent to marriage through the conjugal act or the marital act. The principles and the persons involved keep switching. When the court deals with principles, that, the same sex couple cannot perform the conjugal act, the same sex couple submit themselves as persons. When the court tries to judge persons, the same sex couple switches to principles. A person of principle does not contradict himself.
    The same sex couple are asking the Court to do for them what they cannot do for themselves and what heterosexual couples do do for themselves. Become one. The same sex couple who cannot become one are requesting that the court treat them as one.

  • Some heavenly news – for his greater glory – to give thanks to God for:
    – Beatification of Sr. Irene Stefani “Nyaatha”. First such ceremony in Africa. Thank you Pope Francis. [Cf. http://www.irenestefani.or.ke/about-sr-irene/%5D
    – Incredible miracle: https://youtu.be/1vuM0E8iejw

    Note: nuns still dress as nuns: https://youtu.be/MC2WGnEGGYk

  • Ireland is not a “Catholic” country, but has been going more and more “New Age”. People have lost their way while looking for their way. The new age and modern gnosticism is a great enabler of these social changes back to paganism.
    New Age began creeping across the Isles during Britain’s involvement with India and importing romance and mystery and other interesting things into their already wounded culture. People are attracted to mysticism and sacrament which the Catholic Church has been playing down for 50 years now…
    The True Faith is not presented well. comes across as exciting as your old mother– joining Isis or seeking adventure or seeking mystical experience is appealing to people in the gray gray West.

  • if Ireland was Catholic,they wouldn’t have voted the way they did.

    Yoga, centering prayer, living the “ascended life” all lead people away from the authoritative teaching of the Church. We are not so different from Ireland here.

  • In Ireland (as here in the American midwest) people who call themselves Catholic don’t believe this is a vale of tears– but that we can live the ascended life here and now, no worries about hell or purgatory– may not even exist… may be some kind of a construct of the Church for the sake of earthly power.
    The bad old patriarchal Church of the past is now more in touch with it’s feminine side, is more aware of Mother Earth than God the Father.
    Out of curiosity I looked for any article about the Diocese of Tuam where Knock is- and was pleased by the local priest’s strong “no” on the vote, and defense of family and marriage.


  • For me, one of the most striking results of the Irish Referendum is that the total turnout was a mere 60.5%; that, in other words, two-fifths of the electorate were indifferent to the result. I find such supine indifference on such a fiercely contested issue remarkable.

    Contrast this figure with last year’s Scottish referendum on independence, for expel, where the turnout was 84.59%.

  • “…the archbishop of Dublin is saying that while he intends to vote against same-sex “marriage,” he’s not telling other Catholics how to vote.”

    Or in another similar deceit, “I personally am against abortion, but…..”

    Or sadly this reality; “We shepherds love and protect our sheep, but if they want to frolic a bit with the wolves, then we’ll look the other way–wink, wink.”

  • Meanwhile, child murder is next on the agenda in Ireland, of course once again funded by American liberals.


  • DBlack: “Meanwhile, child murder is next on the agenda in Ireland, of course once again funded by American liberals.”
    A society that lusts after the blood of its unborn children will soon be eradicated from the face of God’s earth.

  • Mary De Voe: “A society that lusts after the blood of its unborn children will soon be eradicated from the face of God’s earth.”

    Interesting that you say that as Islamic radicals controlling Iran are preparing to build nuclear bombs as well as ICBMs, which aren’t needed to bomb Israel. I wonder who they have in mind for using them?

  • All of the above speaks to reality. The silence of Church leaders does, too. There probably won’t be anything definitive from Rome such as what has been spoken to defenders of Faith, Hope, and Love with a measure of contempt. It seems reasonable to imagine some gleeful cold hearts in the effort to keep that percentage of the ‘indifferent’ quiet, if not numb from impotence due to harassment. The spoiled ‘children’ of the US have celebrated success in changing culture and tradition for the past few years with epithets and insults. Hope for integrity and virtue to maintain a certain reality during the onslaught.

  • The word “interdict” comes to mind. It will never happen.
    The Irish idiot (I repeat myslef) population may vote that a dog’s tail is a leg. However, . . .

    “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” — Abraham Lincoln
    Now, In imbecile Ireland, (I repeat myself, again) the word “marriage” means less than nothing.

    Germaine Greer, “. . . Elton John and his ‘wife’ David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I’m sorry. That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It’s gone. It’s been deconstructed.”
    Seeing the land where my ancestors were born wasn’t on my “bucket list.” I’m embracing my Teutonian roots, until they too fall off the face of the Earth.

  • “Ireland’s fate is sealed.” Fr.Shyanguya Mon. @ 2:31pm.

    William P. Walsh brought up the St. Columbkille ” seven years ” prophecy a couple of days ago. ( The sea shall submerge Ireland in one inundation. )

    It, the new law of the land, may witness a manifestation of divine justice, hence a warning of sorts. Could it happen? Could it come before the Supreme Court convenes in June?

    Prayers for all souls are needed.

    Indonesia’s December 26th “act of nature” was inconceivable. It was just a short few years ago…remember?

  • The shame of it all…..a country born again with an acknowledgment of the Most Holy Trinity, and now rejecting it. Satan is pleased.


    In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

    We, the people of Éire,

    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

    Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

    And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

    Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

  • Archbishop Martin is partly responsible for the outcome of the once Catholic Irish Republic’s adaptation of same sex marraige. The Archbishop abandoned his responsibility as an Apostle of the Catholic Church to shepherd his flock. He said that it is not his policy “to tell others how to vote” while stressing “that people should be informed.” How can his flock “be informed” if the Archbishop shirks from his duty to do so. I am sure that Saint Patrick is turning over in his grave and Our Lady of Knock has tears in her eyes.

  • Pingback: Ireland Legalizes Same-Sex 'Marriage' - Big Pulpit
  • @Philip Thank you!

    Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [Creation will be renewed one day, freed from corruption and illumined by God’s glory.] – Rev 21:1 [RSVCE]

    In Scripture, the sea – the first beast in revelation rises from it – is representative of the forces of evil. With this understanding and what has transpired in Ireland, I have recently been thinking what St. Columba’s prophecy might mean.

  • Similarly, Caligula named his horse a Roman consul. Unbelievable as it may seem, the dinky dao Irish have managed to outdo Caligula.

  • “In Scripture the sea, – the first beast in revelation rises from it, is representative of the forces of evil.” – Fr. Shyanguya.

    Thanks Father. Seems that the snakes have slithered up the cliffs. Our prayers are coming. We included Ireland in todays Rosary @ Nursing Home.


  • Ireland deserves its fate. Nice job by the Irish hierarchy. They are quite possibly worse than what we have here in the USA.

    My son has baseball. I’ll have more to say on this later.

  • I’m still trying to ascribe the best of motivations to Pope Francis, but there is a startling contrast between his silence on this referendum and his active intervention on the same issue in Slovakia (where the push to supposedly re-define marriage was soundly defeated).

    It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Pope Francis only speaks out when he knows he is backing a popular winner.

  • Please join us in a day of prayer, fasting, and penance for the grave situation in Catholic Ireland.

  • On 29th May 2015

  • Next is the state requiring Catholic churches to conduct
    same sex marriages, which would defile the churches.

  • @Philip. Thank you but I am not an ordained priest. Just a laymen trying to participate in the Christ’s prophetic office that was gifted at Baptism.

  • @FMShyanguya.

    Please excuse my assumption.
    Your faith is exceptional.
    I enjoy your insights and comments on TAC. Blessings to you.

  • Thank you @Philip. Please thank God because if my faith is manifest, it pleased him to gift it to me and make it manifest. Thanks also to @Donald R. McClarey and to TAC for the forum. God bless you and all near and dear to you, and his work at your hands. Lets pray that we all persevere.

  • Sadness, the Blood of Christ stil drips from the Cross.

  • We notice the elephant in the room that most will not speak of…. the mass. Prior to the change (or destruction of the mass) people were flocking into the Catholic Church. Sure it wasn’t sunshine and lollipops but even in these united States people were saying this would be a ‘catholic nation’. After the change of the mass the bottom fell out. Vocations- gone, churches are being sold, etc etc. The faith was lost. Are we to think the mess inside the Church is divorced from the mess in the world? Grace comes in the world through the Church so if it is a mess in here then there will be a mess out there.

    We must get the liturgy fixed back to the form that was building western civilization

  • Pingback: The Irish did what? Begorra! | Blithe Spirit
  • Steve C: What change/changes to the Mass are you referring to? What is your specific recommendation to “fis the Liturgy”?

  • I agree with you Steve. Reverence. Sacrament. Vatican 2 didn’t really call for all these changes. Modernism is bearing its fruit.
    As I indicated in my post above- people are looking elsewhere for the sense of the spiritual. Some find it in the fellowship of Protestant churches (stadium seating , w/ cupholders) and some in centering prayer and yoga. Fr Timothy Radcliffe is popular in Ireland as well as here.
    Mass is getting more casual by the week it seems

  • It doesn’t serve the truth when we use the term “gay” to describe something that is so disordered and so destructive to both the dignity of the person and offends God.

  • T. Shaw-my ancestors were German and Irish. The shameful and diabolic in the history of Germany (and those in the current hierarchy there) made my soul ache. Now I have the added burden of the Irish side which has effectively elevated Satan to god.

  • The phrase “gay marriage” is as meaningless as the phrases “deceptively passing counterfeit currency honestly” or “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.

    Words mean things.–Rush Limbaugh, American political commentator

  • A bit harsh but the thrust is correct. Good time to remember about power corrupting absolutely and the envy of the good by evil which always tries to take good down. It will be a long struggle and good will prevail though not necessarily the way many think. And has been prophesied: many will be lost but there will be the faithful remnent.

  • Mary – your argument about a gay marriage not being a true marriage because it cannot meet the requirements of the Church for marriage is part of an argument I’ve been making for a long time. Civil marriage alone is not enough for a sacramental marriage either. I should know – I received an annulment in record speed because my first marriage constituted an “error in form” having only occurred in front of a Justice of the Peace. The Catholic argument against civil same-sex marriage would be A LOT stronger if they also acknowledged that civil marriage isn’t real marriage. Anyone who gets married civilly only is committing fornication for as long as they remain with their “spouse.” If the Church had been more on top of this all of this confusion about marriage would likely not be happening. For example, the issues of cohabitation would likely not be an issue at all. If you think about it, it’s easy to see that few would feel differently about living in open fornication versus living in state-sanctioned fornication. It just goes to show – once you water down the sacraments for public consumption outside the church as we’ve done with marriage – what else could happen but what we’ve seen so far?

  • Ireland did NOT vote Yes to redefine marriage.

    Voting is not compulsory in Ireland.

    Only 60% of eligible voters voted.

    Of that 60% voted Yes.

    So only 36% of eligible voters said Yes.

    Of those who did not care enough about the importance of mothers and fathers to children to vote, you got what you deserve.

    “For evil to prosper, good man need do nothing.”

  • – A sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between two validly baptized persons, even when one party is non-Catholic. Please note a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic is called mixed marriage.
    – A valid [proper steps were taken/Church law was followed] marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is still a valid marriage but NOT a sacramental marriage.
    – The Catholic church considers as valid marriages between non-Catholics and obviously those are not sacramental marriages.
    – For Catholics: Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

  • FMShyanguya wrote, “The Catholic church considers as valid marriages between non-Catholics and obviously those are not sacramental marriages.”
    If both parties are baptized non-Catholics, their marriage is both valid an sacramental, as the Code of Canon Law majes clear.. “[A] valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament” (CIC 1055 §2)
    There are no formal requirements for such a marriage; just as there were no formal requirements for Catholics before the Council of Trent’s Tametsi decree of 1563.

Endless Debates

Tuesday, January 20, AD 2015



The New York Times hilariously believes that by agreeing to take up the question of gay marriage, the Court will resolve the issue, the Times assuming, as I do, that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.

Such judicial interventions in the governance of this country in regard to hotly contested questions tend to be the starting of debates and not the ending of them.  This week on January 22, we will be observing the 42 anniversary of the decision of Roe v. Wade which sought to resolved the abortion issue.  The fight about abortion continues unabated, the Court’s pro-abortion rulings notwithstanding.  In a democracy, attempts by nine unelected lawyers in black robes to resolve questions of great moment tend not to work in the absence of political power and consensus to support the decision.  Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reminds us that the Court has a long history of inflaming, rather than ending, debates in this nation:

In “Abuse of Discretion,” Clark Forsythe’s comprehensive look at how Roe v. Wade came to be, he notes that advocates of legalized abortion polled a very general question about whether abortion “should be between a woman and her physician.” Four months before the first arguments in Roe v. Wade were made, such a question got 64 percent affirming it in a Gallup poll, perhaps because the wording was so vague. (This is a bit of an aside, but Forsythe notes that abortion is almost never between a woman and her physician. Fewer than 5 percent of abortions are performed by a woman’s regular OB-GYN and almost all are performed by a stranger.)

You’d have to be living in a New York Times bubble to think that Roe v. Wade was either a limited decision or would end debate. In many ways, that decision is what led to many more people thinking deeply about abortion for the first time. And when they did begin thinking deeply about the topic, it frequently benefited the pro-life movement.

In another abortion decision years later, some justices signed onto some serious wishful thinking about court decisions settling the question of whether there is a right to kill an unborn child. Scalia’s dissent in Casey speaks to this and offers yet another example when the court thought it was settling another contentious issue (and that one’s a doozie):

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

I’ll give the New York Times this much: Whatever the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage, I bet it will end the debate at least as much as Dred Scott ended the debate about slavery, Roe ended the debate about abortion, and Casey ended the debate about abortion.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Endless Debates

  • As they say; it was never supposed to be this way. The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do. The court has been built up by media and university to be something it is not; it is totally in the USG, which makes it worthless in confronting the USG.
    You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865. The States were the only real check on the USG, but AL changed all that. AL brought in the era of a super strong central government that interferes in our lives in almost every way.
    So stop looking at the SCOTUS for anything that resembles freedom. Not going to happen. Our new god is the USG, which is what communism is all about, replacing God. To Catholics that are faithful, it is not a new God, but a little Satan.

  • Terms limits and referendums.

  • Even if SCOTUS decides against a constitutional right to SSM, courts across the country will be faced with an intractable problem, similar to that raised by polygamous marriages in Europe.

    When citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in, say, France, where marriage is strictly monogamous, the courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the lady or ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife, as described in the Code Civil, to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

    The same question can arise in relation to succession to moveable and immoveable property, the owners of which are citizens of and domiciled in a foreign country where polygamy is legal.

    No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this and the politicians have avoided the issue like the plague..

    The analogy with same-sex marriages is obvious enough.

  • “You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.”

    What a bizarre statement. The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War. It was the slaveholding South and their Democrat allies in the North that championed an imperial Supreme Court based upon the Dred Scott decision. Their constant refrain was that the Supreme Court had spoken and that the question of whether slaveholders could take slaves into any territory had been resolved in the affirmative.

    Lincoln’s response to this in the First Inaugural was the correct one:

    I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War.”
    Only if one rather disingenuously separates the war itself from the war-aims of the victors and from its aftermath, in which those aims were implemented.
    Here was a war fought in defence of State Rights and opposing the right of the Federal government to interfere with a state’s domestic arrangements. Those that defended state rights were defeated and the victors placed them under military occupation, installed puppet governments of freedmen, scalawags and carpet-baggers and proceeded to ratify three constitutional amendments, all restricting the powers of the states.
    If sovereignty is “the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever” (Bodin), the states, for good or ill, were stripped of it as a result of the Civil War.

  • The Supreme Court has not been noticeable for its adherence to the doctrine of Stare Decisis.
    In Jones v Opelika [319 US 584 (1942)] one finds Roberts J complaining that, in some six years, the court had fourteen times reversed one or more of its earlier decisions, many of them recent. He observed that such decisions tended “to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that the opinion announced today may not shortly be repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject.”

    As one particularly egregious example, a case, Minersville School District v Gobitis [310 US 586 (1940)] that was decided by a majority of eight to one, was overruled three years later in West Virginia School Board of Education v Barnette [319 US 624 (1943)] by a majority of six to three. Of the six, three of the Justices (Black, Douglas & Murphy JJ) had changed their minds, two (Jackson & Ritledge JJ) were new appointments and one was the former lone dissident (Stone CJ, formerly Stone J)

    One might have thought that, the highest court having once decided what the law is, it should be for the legislator to say what it ought to be.

  • MPS I will assume that some neo-Confederate is holding you hostage and forcing you to speak such rubbish.

    The War was not fought in defense of States Rights but rather in defense of slavery. The founders of the Confederacy were quite forthright about that at the beginning of the War.

    As far as the Federal government interfering with “domestic arrangements”, what a coy way of speaking of human slavery, Lincoln was quite clear prior to the War that he had no power to interfere with slavery within a state.

    Those that defended slavery were defeated, not those that championed states’ rights.

    The post Civil War amendments would have been approved even if every former Confederate state had voted against them. The same group of people who led their states out of the Union quickly regained power as Reconstruction ended, largely due to the terrorism imposed against freed blacks by the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations that formed the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party in the South.

    The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.”
    I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

  • I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

    They issued such legislation around about 1832. Cannot recall if the customs inspectors in Charleston paid the South Carolina legislature any heed or not. IIRC, the legislature later retreated. The power of Congress delineated in Article I to levy “duties”, “imposts”, and “excises” could not be more explicit.

  • You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.

    As late as 1929, public expenditure amounted to 8% of gross domestic product; 65% of all public expenditure was executed by state and local governments, who received little in the way of subsidies from Washington. About 35% of federal expenditure was devoted to the military, not a task you can readily farm out to the periphery.

    Manipulation of the states through federal subventions started small with the financing of the U.S. Route system in 1916; it underwent rapid expansion during the Roosevelt Administration, but the real bender began in 1965 with various and sundry Great Society programs. Abuse of state and local government through federal court decisions was a problem of quite modest dimensions prior to 1954.

  • “The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do.”
    The Supreme Court Justices are the personification of God’s perfect Justice. Justice cannot be bought and paid for. The Supreme Court Justices are given compensation. The compensation is derived from tax money and ought not be taxed as stipends and donations and free will offerings are not taxed. Justice Clarence Thomas was almost hauled before the IRS for some money his wife was given for a speaking engagement.
    The Supreme Court stands as testimony against atheism. If anyone wants JUSTICE, “We, the people” need God, not the god of atheism nor the god of political correctness but the True God of Truth. Men are not wives, extortion is not contribution, and Truth, Justice and Innocence are born with every human being, from the very first moment of existence. God gives the newly begotten His Name: I AM…an adopted child of God, created and procreated.

  • Snowflake babies will end abortion.The existence of the human being, frozen and gestated into adult individual persons, can no longer be denied. Gracie Crane and 44,000 snowflake babies in U.K. alone. Test tube babies who survived every conceivable evil. Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned.
    Roe v. Wade found that the unborn had no sovereign personhood, disenfranchising the unborn of their right to life. Gracie Crane says that she has sovereign personhood from the very first moment of her existence in the IVF, in the liquid nitrogen, in her adopted mother’s womb and in her adopted family. Gracie Crane has 44,000 witnesses to her testimony in the U.K. God endows sovereign personhood. The rights the state or the U.N. gives, the state and the U.N. can take away. T.J.
    60,000,000 persons have been destroyed in the womb in America.

  • “I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?”

    No, although it threatened to do so. Jackson was at his finest during the Nullification Crisis, the first attempt by South Carolina to start a Civil War. Jackson made his policy clear on April 13, 1830 when he gave a toast at a Jefferson dinner of the Democrat party: “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved”. John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s Vice President and the very embodiment of South Carolina, responded: “The Union, next to our liberty most dear.”.

    The crisis came to a head in 1832 and it looked as if war was in the offing. On December 10, 1832 Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation which attacked both nullification and secession. Jackson threatened to hang every leader of the nullification forces if a drop of blood were shed in opposition to the laws of the United States. When Senator Hayne of South Carolina told Senator Benton of Missouri that he doubted if Jackson would really hang anyone, Benton, a good friend of Jackson and a man who had shot him in a brawl, one of many such affrays Jackson was involved in during his life, in 1813 before they became friends, told him that “When Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes”. South Carolina ultimately backed down, helped by Congress passing legislation lowering tariff rates along with a Force Bill authorizing Jackson to use force to collect the tariff, and our Civil War was reserved for a later generation.

  • Small but significant correction: that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.
    Should be “that the Court is likely to strike down all laws upholding traditional marriage and impose its will by judicial fiat.” The vocabulary is important because it leads the conversation. Traditional marriage opponents want to frame traditionalists as “anti”. (“There they go again.”) In the modern public mind, being “anti” requires much higher justification.
    Voters voted to define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. It is not a stand against a particular association. It is an affirmation of a definition of marriage. Anything else, be it heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, is incompatible.
    In preparation for our new judicially formed society (Leave it to the robes to create a more perfect union.), I am reading Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. It’s a fascinating book so far. My Kindle highlighter is used on every page I think.

  • I too have read–and highly recommend– “Making Gay Okay.” Now I am able to understand the poisonous “Enlightenment” roots of the ideology that has brought us to where we are today regarding marriage. Unfortunately, this same time period produced the inspiration for many of the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

  • Don, I agree with your assessement of the Framers’ miscalculation of the Judicial Branch. I have long suspected that the Framers simply did not fully anticipate the scope of judicial review and its implications. Don’t get me wrong — anticipated or not, I do think Marbury v Madison was correctly decided. Judicial review necessarily follows from the architecture of our Constitution, and is conceptually desirable. But had its scope been properly anticipated, I believe the Framers would have supplied both the Executive and Legislative branches with superior checks against abuse. As it stands, the Court can exceed its Constitutional authority with impunity, and sometimes does. It did in Dred Scott, and it did in Roe and much of Roe’s progeny.

  • Agreed as to Marbury Mike. Some colonial courts had engaged in judicial review so it definitely was not a new concept. What would have stunned the Founding Fathers is a Congress so riven by partisan divisions as to tamely consent to judicial usurpations as a way to “win” on contentious issues by judicial fiat. The Founding Fathers always assumed that ultimate power resided in the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people, and to have that power blithely ceded to the Judiciary would have astounded them.

  • One aspect of this is, I suspect sociological or cultural, and that is that the interests and values of the legal profession prior to a certain date were never at such a variance with those of the general public that judicial review was a reliable instrument of political factions. I’d also wager that the closer one grows to our time, the more the legal profession and academe are populated with people quite willing to utter errant rubbish with the utmost superciliousness.

    It should trouble everyone that the disbarred Little Rock Lounge Lizard and his lovely wife Bruno are respected personages, nowhere more so than at the college campuses willing to pay them $189,000 for 50 minutes of boilerplate. It should trouble everyone that David Plouffe was able to merchandise someone as vapid and silly as BO, something never attempted before in the annals of presidential politics. Of course it does not, and the people least troubled are those putatively devoted to the life of the mind. Sorry age we live in.

  • “Sorry age we live in.”

    Amen Art.

  • Donald says; The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War. I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it. That fact alone shows were the power lies in our country. The USG serves at the pleasure of the states. That part of the constitution was written to ensure that if the USG became a tyrant, the states could control, replace, or do away with the constitution, as the states did in the first and second agreement with each other.

  • “I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it.”

    A power which has existed since the inception of the Constitution and which has never been exercised by the States. That of course has nothing to do with individual states seeking to ipse dixit nullify Federal laws.

  • There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison (6 Sept 1789)
    “On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form: The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”
    A salutary reminder that laws, including constitutions, are not judgments (which may be true or false) but commands, that is an act of the will.

  • “There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison”

    Interesting, and as usual, wrongheaded. Fortunately it was Madison who, along with his Federalist (not the political party) allies who had the final say. Here’s Madison himself, in print in Federalist 49.

    In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side. The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

  • PZ
    Jefferson had obviously read Turgot, for whom the maxim thatthe earth belonging to the living and not to the dead or to those on it not under it, is a constant theme.
    Now, as Lord Acton noted of Turgot, “he taught mankind to expect that the future would be unlike the past, that it would be better, and that the experience of ages may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control. He is eminently a benefactor to historical study; but he forged a weapon charged with power to abolish the product of history and the existing order. By the hypothesis of progress, the new is always gaining on the old; history is the e mbodiment of imperfection, and escape from history became the watchword of the coming day. Condorcet, the master’s pupil, thought that the world might be emancipated by burning its records.”
    Jefferson appears to have been of Turgot’s opinion; he was an extravagant hater of tailzies and perpetuities.

  • I’ve long maintained that Jefferson sounds much more like Rousseau in his language regarding constitutions, tradition, and democracy. Regardless of the influence, Jefferson’s philosophy is one that takes us down a rather dark path, in my opinion, but I’ve spilt so much digital ink on this topic that I’ll just leave it at that.

First They Came For the Bakers, And Then the Photographers, And Then the Ministers and Next….

Tuesday, October 21, AD 2014

Liberal Tolerance 2

Poor silly man, d’you think they‘ll leave you here to learn to fish?

Lady Alice to Sir Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons

Contrary to the popular idea that the success that the gay rights movement has had through the imposition of gay marriage by judicial fiat means the ending of a culture war, this is actually the beginning of a much greater one, as Robert Tracinski, a secularist, at The Federalist is wise enough to understand:


On Friday, city officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, informed Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers and proprietors of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, that they would be required to perform gay weddings or face fines or possibly jail time under the city’s “public accommodations” statute. Their religious views are expected to adjust to the edicts of the state.

So it’s official: a new religious orthodoxy is sweeping across the nation, imposed by government and backed by force. It’s a religious orthodoxy required by secular authorities for a secular purpose, but no matter. Heretics will be found out and forced to recant.

No one ever expects the Secular Inquisition.

Except that we actually did expect it. In fact, it’s inherent in the fundamental basis of the left’s arguments for gay marriage.

I’m speaking here of the argument for gay marriage. It may be hard to remember now, but not very long ago there were compromise proposals for same-sex “civil unions” that were legally equivalent to marriage but under a different name. Gay rights activists consciously rejected these unions in order to specifically demand the use of the term “marriage,” insisting that the state legally recognize and enforce the equality of these marriages with old-fashioned, outmoded heterosexual ones.

Personally, I have no problem with gay people getting hitched, having weddings, and saying that they are “married.” I don’t have any religious objection, on account of not being religious, nor do I think gay marriages, given their very small numbers, will have any particular impact on the state of marriage as an important social institution. (Which, alas, has all sorts of problems of its own.)

But the test of liberty isn’t what happens to people who agree with the intent of a particular edict. The test is what happens to people who disagree.

That brings us to the reason why gay rights advocates insisted on the government granting same-sex unions the title of “marriage.” The theory behind this was that homosexuals suffer from a lack of social acceptance, and gay marriage would put the government’s imprimatur on their status as social equals—along with the promise that this equality is to be backed by government force.

Continue reading...

51 Responses to First They Came For the Bakers, And Then the Photographers, And Then the Ministers and Next….

  • They (the intolerant tolerant) never rest. They never quit.

  • In England & Wales, the Same Sex Couples (Marriage) Act 2013 does not authorise the marriage of same sex couples according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England and any such attempted marriage would be void. This was designed to protect incumbents from a claim of discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), on the grounds that their position as ministers of the established church means that they are public functionaries.

    In Scotland, the same considerations do not apply. Parliament made clear in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 that ministers of the kirk are not state officials – “This Church, as part of the Universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of Church office-bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline in the Church… Recognition by civil authority of the separate and independent government and jurisdiction of this Church in matters spiritual, in whatever manner such recognition be expressed, does not in any way affect the character of this government and jurisdiction as derived from the Divine Head of the Church alone, or give to the civil authority any right of interference with the proceedings or judgments of the Church within the sphere of its spiritual government and jurisdiction.” Any application to the civil courts would be incompetent for want of jurisdiction.

    Other churches (including the Catholic Church) in both England and Wales and Scotland are voluntary associations and they are protected by the provision that only those bodies or celebrants that apply for authorisation to marry same sex couples are able to do so. They cannot be guilty of discrimination for refusing to officiate at a ceremony they have no legal power to perform.

  • I’d think that nay number of Constitutional forces can be brought to bear to shoot this idiot blob down. It may be that the venue must be open to all, but that non-Christian couples shall provide their own “ministers.”
    Or, if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.
    Yes, I know those are now theoretical concepts, but they existed in force once upon a time, and if now isn’t the time to punch back, hard, fast and accurate, then that time will never come.

  • WK Aitken wrote, “if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.”

    A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy. The notion is a very ancient one; the Roman law obliged nautae caupones stabularii, [shipowners, innkeepers and livery stables] to offer their services to all and the notion of “common calling” is derived from that.

    I imagine the authorities picked the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel as a soft target, on the grounds that it is as much as business as the blacksmith’s shop at Gretna Green.

  • “A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy.” – true, if it’s a licensed business which I suppose it must be. I know of places that are not but are “open” to people who simply want to avail themselves to the locations, but that’s a different story.

  • Mark my words, the tax exempt status of any church that will not perform, bless, approve homosexual marriages will be gone in a couple of years. That’s the next step for the “intolerant tolerants”.

  • “I imagine the authorities picked the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel as a soft target, on the grounds that it is as much as business as the blacksmith’s shop at Gretna Green.”
    You are precisely correct MPS. These people want to establish a precedent here that a ‘religious business’ is a business and that the anti-discrimination laws apply just as in any other business. Once done they will move on to sue a traditional church, and the ‘religious business’ will be transformed into a ‘church’ in their brief.

    However, one of the hallmarks of law regarding religion in the U.S. is that the government is deemed to be not competent in judging the relative merits of one faith against another. Hence, the legal standing of the Knapps is no different than that of any other minister in any other church. They as clergy cannot be forced by the government to do anything their beliefs proscribe. The city has an uphill battle ahead of them. I hope the Knapps sue the city for legal fees and court costs.

  • Our beautiful Muslim brothers would know how to react to this travesty.

  • TomD

    Of course, but if one wanted to pick a test case, it would be easier to use the Knapps than, say, an Haredi Shul, which has more exacting requirements, shall we say, of whom they will or will not marry.

    Perhaps, there is something to be said for the French rule of mandatory civil marriage (le mariage civil obligatoire) Only an officer of civil status (the mayor or his adjunct) can perform a marriage and it is a crime – an attack on the civil status of persons (un atteinte à l’état civil des personnes) for a minister of religion habitually to conduct marriages for people not legally married (Code Pénal Art 433-21) “Habitually” is intended to make allowance for death-bed marriages and “marriages of conscience.” There can be no question of compeling a minister of religion to marry a same-sex couple, for the simple reason that they cannot marry anyone.
    Catholic wedding invitations typically invite one to “assist” at « Le mariage » (civil) and « La bénédiction nuptiale » (the religious ceremony) or only the latter.

  • Evil actions / sexual perversions will not have the last word! Disordered reality will be seen in the Light for what it is.
    Jesus, I trust in you.

  • “Of course, but if one wanted to pick a test case, it would be easier to use the Knapps than, say, an Haredi Shul, which has more exacting requirements, shall we say, of whom they will or will not marry.”
    But that’s just my point. The perception of ‘ease’ in the minds of the city is false, because U.S. law cannot make any distinction. How the Knapps became ‘ordained’ or even what precisely constitutes ordination, and who they allow or not allow to marry under their religious views is not material. At worst the city could prevail regarding their chapel’s fees and internal physical arrangements by arguing these are more ‘businesslike’ than a church, but considering that other churches often have fees and even gift shops (all major cathedrals do) the Knapps could easily circumvent any challenge by rearranging the furniture to match other churches’ arrangements, if necessary. The only way the city can win is if the Knapps’ attorneys are incompetent, or if the U.S. judiciary has been totally corrupted.

  • Never underestimate the power of a motivated Supreme Court to construct a test.

  • Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is involved in the Knapp’s defense, as I understand. They’re frequently on the front lines against militant secularist forces in the U.S. and generally seem to be competent.
    As for the French vs U.S. methods related to marriage, there’s two questions at play here. One is philosophical: from where do rights originate? The second is practical: how well is such philosophy understood and expressed in each country?
    Generally speaking, the U.S. tradition and original founding has declared rights to be pre-existing, endowed by the Creator…marriage, in this regard, was viewed as an institution which the government did not create but acknowledged. I grant historical caveats and the like, but as I said: “generally speaking”…
    I’m not as intimately familiar with how French philosophies of rights were originally articulated, but from Michael’s description of civil marriage, the government seems to be the ultimate grantor (if not absolutely, at least in practice) of rights at least in respect to marriage. It’s been my understanding that while French political philosophy mirrored / shared much from the American founding, there was a more secular interpretation of natural law and theories of natural rights.
    As to how well this philosophy is put into practice in France, I cannot say. I can say that the U.S. philosophy has become disconnected if not utterly forgotten from modern practice, in light of these types of lawsuits. This case is precisely a manifestation of the delta that has been created between practice and philosophy.
    I submit this: if we, as Catholics, are one of the few (if not only) Christian traditions that hold that marriage is a sacrament, and yet we will submit to the words “By the power vested in me by the [insert name of governmental authority], I pronounce you [insert politically correct term for two (or more) spouses]”…then whom do we call master? God or the world? Maybe I’m over-analyzing or possibly over-simplifying, but in light of this past weekend’s Gospel reading about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, I think it’s fair to ask in the intersection of Catholicism and political philosophy: does the sacrament of marriage belong to God or to Caesar?
    In that view, and in my humble opinion, I do not think that the French model offers a positive alternative to the U.S., even in light of the dissonance between U.S. philosophy vs practice with respect to rights and marriage.

  • Let me add that what Michael described as a civil marriage followed by a religious marriage seems to be somewhat analogous to the practice of marriage licenses in the U.S. While the requirements are different for different states and so forth, I’m generally under the impression that the license does not, in fact, confer the marital status until the religious ceremony occurs.
    Now, perhaps a lawyer from the U.S. perspective might offer a correction if I’ve mucked this understanding up.

  • No religious ceremony is needed. For example in Illinois couples can be married by judges or by the Circuit Clerk of Cook County. I can think of no place less romantic than a courthouse for the locus where a marriage is performed!

  • When Catholic clergy become persecuted in this country for refusing to perform homosexual marriages, will Pope Francis call them unmercifully traditionalist or will he have mercy on them?

  • PS, I like T Shaw’s comment about Muslims. Those fanatics for whose beliefs the homosexual-supporting left makes every excuse to give deference would behead both homosexual and his leftist supporter alike. On the other hand, because I insist on leaving homosexuals alone so long as they leave me alone, I am accused of the most heinous crime of all: intolerance. Darn straight I am intolerant – of liberalism, progressivism, modernism, hedonism and all the other ISM’s – the I, Self and Me’s.

  • Thanks Don, and agreed about the “marriage certificate” ceremony. My question is if one is having a religious ceremony, then am I correct in saying that the marriage license isn’t equated to the marriage certificate in a civil marriage?
    Let me put it this way… When I was in graduate school, a friend of a friend was married in front of a historic train station by the mayor…not something that I found appealing. I presume that this is entirely consistent with what Michael describes in France.
    However, I know from my own wedding, we obtained our marriage license a few days prior to the ceremony. And I know that the priest, my wife, our witnesses and I signed the marriage certificate, right after the wedding ceremony. So, I guess in that sense, the priest was acting as an official on behalf of the state. However, this order of operations (as well as the officiant) appears to be illegal in France.
    Further, the license had nothing to do with the official date of our marriage. This, to my point, would make the French civil marriage not analogous to a marriage license in the U.S. in the context of a religious ceremony. Also, as an aside: if a Catholic couple in France obtain the civil marriage first, are they considered married in the eyes of the priest and the ceremony is therefore nothing other than a blessing? I would assume they wouldn’t be married twice, as it were.
    Back to the discussion at hand: Idaho was one of the states which recently had their laws on marriage overturned by judicial fiat, by way of abstention. I am sure that a homosexual couple could pick from any of a number of venues, including some professing to be Christian, which could have performed the ceremony. I am in complete agreement with Michael and Tom that this was a trial balloon.
    If the couple really was there only because they loved the venue, then why are there no legal precedents of, say, a good and decent Southern Baptist couple suing for permission to have a Catholic priest marry them, despite not being members of the parish? I mean, I’m sure there are some Southern Baptists who would appreciate an old fashioned pipe organ, stained glass, and the occasional phrase in Latin as the perfect backdrop for their most special of days. And the only reason the priest would deny it, the tyrants of tolerance would tell us, is due to their religious bigotry. There’s surely no way the priest could oppose on sincerely-held religious convictions regarding sacramental theology.
    While some would point to the fact that the Knapps made their ministry their business as well, the Hobby Lobby decision by the same black-robed oligarchy should provide some precedent in their favor. And the Knapps aren’t what I’d consider unique…I know that, according to my wife (who used to help with wedding planning), some churches of various denominations do charge fees of some sort for weddings conducted in their facilities.
    But, yes, the next step will be a similar couple demanding a Catholic priest marry them. The only variable that I see is how long it is until that happens…and I suspect that the Knapp case will be the predictor of whether it happens sooner or later.

  • “My question is if one is having a religious ceremony, then am I correct in saying that the marriage license isn’t equated to the marriage certificate in a civil marriage?”

    In the US marriage is a two step procedure. First the marriage license, then having someone authorized to do so perform the marriage. If the marriage is not performed, the marriage license does not constitute a legal marriage. The fact that in the States a multitude of people can perform a marriage would weaken a law suit to compel someone to perform a marriage. When someone provides a service, the law in the US has traditionally not required someone to do so to all and any comers where there is no shortage of people providing the service. For example as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take. Anti-discrimination laws have weakened this traditional privilege of service providers, but if no reason is given for an unwillingness to provide the service, it would not be an easy case where a discriminatory reason would have to be proven. Of course, the first amendment protection of churches probably would render such a suit against a priest, minister, rabbi, etc, unconstitutional.

  • Meanwhile, Abp. Charles Chaput has suggested that maybe the time has come for priests to consider “principled resistance” to the imposition of same-sex civil marriage by, basically, getting out of the civil marriage business altogether:


    “In a lecture delivered Monday evening in Manhattan, Chaput also suggested that in the wake of the rapid series of court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage in more than 30 states, Catholic priests might consider opting out of certifying civil marriages as a sign of “principled resistance.”…

    “….By long-standing U.S. practice, a Catholic priest, like any licensed clergy, acts as an agent of the state when signing a couple’s marriage certificate.

    “It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’ ” Chaput said in his prepared remarks.

    “Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet,” he said.

    “Chaput said he wasn’t necessarily endorsing that move yet, but “in the spirit of candor encouraged by Pope Francis,” he said the American bishops should “discuss and consider it as a real course of action.”

    If that were to happen, then American Catholics would be basically in the same position as Catholics in foreign countries that only recognize civil marriage — they would have to have two weddings, one civil and one religious, if they wanted their union to be both legally and sacramentally valid. And though I understand what Abp. Chaput is getting at here, some of what he said is problematic:

    — If Abp. Chaput really believes that it is morally wrong or potentially scandalous for a priest to cooperate in or endorse a system of civil marriage that is no longer in conformity with natural law, then why is he “not necessarily endorsing that move (refusal to sign civil marriage licenses) yet”? Either it’s wrong or it’s not; if it’s wrong, then the practice should stop now.

    — If a priest or bishop cannot “in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’” what about the couple? If they fully believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, how can they, in good conscience, sign THEIR names to such a certificate? If they cannot, does this mean that believing Catholic couples can no longer enter civil marriages in any jurisdiction that allows same-sex civil marriage? This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.

  • Pingback: Syria: 17-year-old Christian Boy Crucified - BigPulpit.com
  • John by any other name

    Mandatory civil marriage was introduced in France on 9 November 1791, after 10 million tenant farmers (vassals) had been turned into heritable proprietors.

    The Civil Code contains no definition of marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001). This led one of the greatest modern commentators on the Civil Code (Carbonnier) to remark that “The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.” This is rooted in Roman law, with Paulus declaring, ” is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant. ” [marriage points out the father] (Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1)

    That is why the Pécresse Commission that reported to the National Assembly in 2006 insisted that “Mandatory civil marriage makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament.” [le mariage civil obligatoire, qui fait de cette institution un pilier de la République laïque au-delà du sacrement religieux]

    In other words, marriage is viewed primarily as a public institution that determines civil status. If a couple wish to have their union blessed, that is a private matter.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take”

    In Scotland, a solicitor may choose his clients, but an advocate may not. The acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not, if in the one case a client and in the other the court pleases to insist on it. This is sometimes referredd to as the “cab rank principle.”

  • Luke 17:34-37
    I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.” And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”
    Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists of the CI Scofield variety suppose this refers to the Rapture. They are mistaken. The person who is taken is the one dragged away into prison and torture by those whose banner is SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romae) above which rests the Eagle, and the person who is left behind is the one not taken into prison and torture.
    What is the American national symbol if not the Eagle? As liberal progressivism has assumed ascendency and we have become a national democracy instead of a constitutional republic, we should well remember what our Blessed Lord said:
    “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

  • Elaine Krewer.

    Great link….thanks. Abp. Chaput is making excellent sense in principled resistance. The timing is right however resistance to principled resistance will be evident, but so what! Jesus did not ask the money changers be fair in their exchange of coin for sheckel’s…He turned their tables over and took a whip to drive them out. Chaput’s idea is less violent and yet is bold enough to send the right message.

  • No more than radios and cassette disc players make a car, do flowers, cakes, pictures, and wedding receptions a “marriage” make. These things are peripheral accessories.
    The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony may be performed by a priest in the rectory, with two attendants as witnesses. It may be even that only one attendant is required. The good will and informed consent of the couple is the only necessary requirement for the Sacrament. The cost is nothing.
    Proprietors of bakeries, photographies, florists, and halls are not required to allow just anybody, but do have some control over whom they serve as their insurance may not allow persons with no shoes, shirts or ebola virus to enter their premises, because in the first place, the proprietors are the final arbiters of whom is permitted or prohibited into their personal space, allowed access to their face.
    When the proprietor denies access to his/her face, a contract cannot be signed.
    When the same sex couple is admitted into court, the first person they will meet is the judge who has the authorization of the state “by the power vested in…” him/her, to perform the fulfillment of the law. Therefore, the same sex couple is not denied or being denied any civil right required by the law and have no plaint against any other person/citizen.
    If, in the absence of good will, the same sex couple demands of another citizen certain amenities for himself, he is not acting in good will and his demands may be denied by the other person and not supported by the court since the same sex couple is not acting in good will towards the state. (and the court). (and the citizen).
    “GET OUTTA MY FACE” is more than slang. “GET OUT OF MY FACE” is the right of every sovereign person who happens to also be a citizen.
    (If the same sex couple tries to contract any amenities by lying or cheating or swindle; subterfuge, the contract is not valid and may not and will not be supported in a court of law.)

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:
    “Any application to the civil courts would be incompetent for want of jurisdiction.
    Other churches (including the Catholic Church) in both England and Wales and Scotland are voluntary associations and they are protected by the provision that only those bodies or celebrants that apply for authorisation to marry same sex couples are able to do so. They cannot be guilty of discrimination for refusing to officiate at a ceremony they have no legal power to perform.”
    The absolute mind of John Henry Cardinal Newman and Thomas Jefferson.
    John Henry Cardinal Newman said:
    “It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.”

    Thomas Jefferson said: Jan. 1. 1802.
    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.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:
    WK Aitken wrote, “if the chapel is recognized as private property, then the owners can do what they like.”
    A lunch counter is private property, but the owners cannot operate a “whites only” policy. The notion is a very ancient one; the Roman law obliged nautae caupones stabularii, [shipowners, innkeepers and livery stables] to offer their services to all and the notion of “common calling” is derived from that.
    Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation. Sodomy is an act of man against God. Inflicting immorality on another person by scandal and calling evil as good is a lie and perjury in a court of law.

  • John by any other name: “I submit this: if we, as Catholics, are one of the few (if not only) Christian traditions that hold that marriage is a sacrament, and yet we will submit to the words “By the power vested in me by the [insert name of governmental authority], I pronounce you [insert politically correct term for two (or more) spouses]“…then whom do we call master? God or the world? Maybe I’m over-analyzing or possibly over-simplifying, but in light of this past weekend’s Gospel reading about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, I think it’s fair to ask in the intersection of Catholicism and political philosophy: does the sacrament of marriage belong to God or to Caesar?”
    “Render unto to Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” Caesar belongs to God. And Caesar must exist in the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Therefore, anyone entering into a covenant with God must be in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. God is living in every true marriage as a covenant. Anyone entering into a contract of legal marriage must also be living in the truth. Marriage consists in informed consent and the marital act. If either of these components or requirements is missing the marriage is invalid no matter when, where or whom does officiate.

  • Elaine Krewer wrote, “This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”

    It would also have a profound effect on the legal rights of their children. The father would have no parental rights or responsibilities; the mother would be sole legal guardian. It coud also have repercussions on succession; a great deal of land is held under special destinations – “to x and the heirs-male of his body lawfully procreate, whom failing &c” Here the children would be excluded from the succession, in favour, it may well be, of a distant cousin. Also, such settlements usually contain a power to grant a liferent to the surviving spouse, but not to a mere cohabitee, so the heir could turn out both the surviving spouse and the children.

    I am sure it could be argued that the couple’s signing the certificate would be a permissible remote material cooperation, which is permitted for grave reasons. That does not mean that a refusla by the clergy to participate would not be an excellent form of protest. It would be, in fact, the French system, with two ceremonies, a system that exists in most of Europe.

  • “This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”
    An interesting contra-position of the current norm, and, of course, subject to common-law statutes after a time.
    Nonetheless, it would be an interesting “principled resistance” on the part of observant Catholic laity to do so.

  • Elaine Krewer: “— If a priest or bishop cannot “in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’” what about the couple? If they fully believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, how can they, in good conscience, sign THEIR names to such a certificate? If they cannot, does this mean that believing Catholic couples can no longer enter civil marriages in any jurisdiction that allows same-sex civil marriage? This would put them in the rather awkward position of being sacramentally married in the sight of God but merely cohabiting in the eyes of the State.”
    A state’s marriage license is an instrument, a vital statistic. The priest acts as an agent of the state in participating in the regulation of the state, but so is the priest’s citizenship. The state has legalized human sacrifice and decriminalized sodomy and is working on cloning a slave race of human beings. The state does not deserve the recognition of real persons. The priest signs the marriage certificate for the protection of the decent person and the priest’s citizenship in performing a sacramental marriage may be viewed as an act against such a criminal or plain ignorant state, as well as an act of religion and conscience.
    Your perception in this matter, Elaine Krewer, is great.

  • In old times, in Europe, the only records or vital statistics belonged to the church, who kept records of births, deaths, and marriage.
    Vital statistics kept by the state do not convey ownership of the person to the state. But it does convey some power to the state over its constituents, that may be used to the benefit of the citizen but never to the state against the citizen. FWIW

  • WK Aitken wrote, “subject to common-law statutes after a time.”
    Well, no. According to Lord Glenlee, “marriage is founded on consent, and there may be single facts so strong as to supersede everything else. But a man’s allowing a woman to take the station, and be called his wife, is a constant and continued declaration of consent, and after this has gone on for a considerable time is sufficient proof that they are married” [Elder v McLean 1829].
    But, in the case supposed, there would be a clearly expressed intention not to enter into a legal marriage. As Lord Curriehill explained, “A woman cannot grow insensibly from a concubine into a married wife by any natural process of accretion or of accession. Such a metamorphosis cannot be legally effected by such means. Marriage is a consensual contract; and although there are different ways of proving that such a contract is entered into, yet the thing to be proved, whatever be the nature of the evidence, is that the parties entered into a mutual contract accepting of each other as spouses.” [Breadalbane Case, 1867, L.R., 1 Sc. App. 182]

  • MP-S:
    “According to Lord Glenlee, “marriage is founded on consent, and there may be single facts so strong as to supersede everything else. But a man’s allowing a woman to take the station, and be called his wife, is a constant and continued declaration of consent, and after this has gone on for a considerable time is sufficient proof that they are married”
    May hap’s. In the Great State of Indiana where I live, the “considerable time” is seven years, after which a couple is considered “legally married” in every sense that would be if a civil function had been performed.
    The simple declaration during Marriage Mass should be the only requirement, but then lots of things “should be” that aren’t . . .

  • Other thoughts: The granting of or the refusal of a sovereign person to countenance another individual in his personal space or by proxy is a right to peaceable assembly in the First Amendment. If the Knapps refused, as the new reported, “politely declined”, to countenance the gay couple, to refuse to allow the gay couple into their personal space, into their face, there is no contract, no sexual discrimination, no violation of the gay couple’s right to public accommodation. To demonstrate their good will, the Knapps could refer the gay couple to other accommodations (short of hell).

    Michael Paterson-Seymour: ““ Donald R McClarey wrote, “as a private attorney I can choose which cases I wish to take”
    In Scotland, a solicitor may choose his clients, but an advocate may not. The acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not, if in the one case a client and in the other the court pleases to insist on it. This is sometimes referred to as the “cab rank principle.”
    If an attorney, as is Donald McClarey, is order to defend a criminal, it is because the defendant is a criminal. In civil court a person may act “pro se” for him/herself, to speak for himself. And it seems that, like jury duty, the attorney may be excused by the court for life situations, such as sickness or dependent’s sickness. A revulsion of sodomy may excuse an attorney from defending the sodomist’s claim as being a victim. A revulsion of sodomy may excuse the Knapps from supporting the sodomists’ demands to a countenanced contract.

  • The notion is a very ancient one

    The ‘notion’ may be an ancient one, but the practice in this country does not antedate 1946. None of these enterprises are monopolistic common carriers.

  • “Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation.” ? ? ?

  • My point in referencing whether marriage belongs to Caesar or to God was to ask whether it’s fundamentally a civil institution or something that predates society.
    If we start from a profession of faith that God, whether through theistic evolution, intelligent design, or young-earth creationism, created everything…we must assume that marriage predates society and therefore civil institutions. It is not incompatible that regulations, practices and other such things surrounding marriage developed or were grafted on to the fundamental notion presented in Genesis 1:

    27 So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them. 28 And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours; take command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.

    Now, while the “unitive” aspect of marriage wasn’t fully articulated until relatively recently, I claim it’s self-evident that without the “procreative” aspect of marriage, none of us would be here to discuss the nuances of legal tradition surrounding matrimony throughout the ages. This is why the family is regarded as the fundamental unit of society. Society came after the family, and, as such serves the family…not the other way around. It is only recently that the widespread availability of contraception has contributed to the transformation of marriage to only have a value for the “unitive” in the eyes of much of Western society, something that seems at least implicit in Paul VI’s predictions in Humanae vitae. It’s only this transformation which makes the argument “love is love” even viable for marriage revisionists.
    The only alternative to this that I can see is that somehow procreation was only what God intended in Genesis and was separate from marriage. Marriage is therefore merely an institution of man, and was, as modernists would assert, a “social construct”. But I’m not sure that squares with sources that have studied this, from an anthropological perspective I would tend to trust.

    We may say that the positive arguments in favour of the theory of primitive promiscuity seem insufficient to give it any degree of probability, while the biological, economic, psychological, and historical arguments brought against it by many recent writers, e.g. Westermarck (op. cit., iv-vi) seem to render it unworthy of serious consideration. The attitude of contemporary scholars is thus described by Howard: “The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).
    – “History of Marriage”, Catholic Encyclopedia

    Please do not misunderstand me that I’m claiming there aren’t legitimate roles of civic authorities. I understand that the need to establish paternity for the sake of inheritance has a role in the civic order. But it’s my understanding that these expressions are only legitimate when they are acting in accordance with or subordinate to natural law…which ultimately was authored by God. Or to put this another way: Is murder wrong because the government said it was or because God said it was and the government followed suit?

  • “I am sure it could be argued that the couple’s signing the certificate would be a permissible remote material cooperation, which is permitted for grave reasons.”

    Good point. The officiant’s abstention/withdrawal from participating in the civil marriage ritual is, as I see it, mainly for his own protection — so that he cannot be compelled by the state to not “discriminate” against same-sex couples. An opposite-sex couple that has every intention of entering a sacramental, valid marriage, faithful and open to life, however, wouldn’t be “protecting” themselves from anything by forgoing civil marriage; if anything, they would be doing exactly the opposite — depriving themselves, and their future children, of important legal rights and protections.

  • WK Aitken wrote, “The simple declaration during Marriage Mass should be the only requirement,..”
    Usually, of course, it is; but not always. As Lord Dunpark said, “Scots civil law has always applied the consensual principle to the contract of marriage so that, if it be proved that, notwithstanding the trappings of a formal marriage ceremony, the parties thereto did not exchange their consent for the purpose of obtaining married status, the ceremony must be denied the legal effect which it was designed to produce.” [Akram v Akram (1979 SLT (Notes) 87)]
    Likewise, in Hakeem v Hussein (2003 SLT 515) Lord Penrose, giving the judgment of the Inner House (Court of Appeal) said “formal compliance with the procedural requirements of regular marriage is not conclusive of the contraction of a valid marriage”

    The rule is thus .stated by Lord O’Hagan : “In all inquiries of this sort, I apprehend the true rule is not to regard singly and apart the one transaction on which reliance is placed as constituting the marriage. It is necessary to exercise “a large discourse of reason looking both before and after,” and from all the antecedents and all the consequents to ascertain the true mind and purpose of the parties whose intention determines the character of their act.” Robertson v Stewart 1875 2 RHL 80 at p 108

    Marriages celebrated in facie ecclesiæ have frequently been avoided on the ground of force, fraud or error and these are only so many ways of proving want of mutual consent.

  • John by any other name & Elaine Krewer

    Lord Stowell described the two aspects of marriage, civil and religious, very well, when he said, “Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes although no third person existed in the world, as happened in the case of the common ancestors of mankind. It is the parent not the child of civil society. In civil society, it becomes a civil contract regulated and prescribed by law and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilized countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded; it then becomes a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. Heaven itself is made a party to the contract and the consent of the individuals pledged to each other is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God.”

  • The state does not own the proprietor of the public accommodations that the state licenses and regulates. Therefore the state cannot regulate whom the proprietor allows into his personal space and allows to be countenanced by himself. As I wrote earlier, It is only the individual citizen who may decide who enters into his personal space even after the other has entered into his establishment, that establishment, regulated and licensed. As I wrote earlier, if a customer is not allowed into the personal space of the citizen proprietor, if the customer is prohibited from being countenanced by the proprietor of a public accommodation, a contract cannot be made and will not be made by fiat of the state.
    In the matter of the same sex marriage, if the state decrees that it must be done then the state can and may perform the ss marriage.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Heaven itself is made a party to the contract and the consent of the individuals pledged to each other is ratified and consecrated by a vow to God.”
    Only if or when the individuals, the couple, consent to make a covenant with God is marriage a Sacrament. When the couple admits to no belief in God, the state witnesses to a contract between two consenting adults. Atheism explains this better than I might. However, here we have a situation where a ss couple might not be able to consent to a civil, secular contract because of the inability of the ss couple to copulate, to perform the marital act, a necessary condition of marriage.

  • Anzlyne: “”“Being “black” is an act of God, as is sexual orientation.” ? ? ?”
    Homosexuality was once diagnosed as “arrested development” by the American Psychiatric
    Assn. that is, before the North American Man Boy Love Assn forced the APA to change their diagnosis to “normal”. NAMBLA practises medicine without a license.
    Being born African American or with arrested development is an act of “their Creator”. Acting out homosexuality in homosexual behavior and blaming God for having created a person with this condition is sodomy and blasphemy, both sinful acts of the free will that require consent.

  • Mary De Voe wrote, “The state does not own the proprietor of the public accommodations that the state licenses and regulates….”

    True, but as Rousseau says, “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • Rousseau:
    “but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
    So when the collective People is the sole judge of what is important, how is that not also tyrannical when it imposes that judgment upon those who disagree?
    I originally started responding to this equating Sovereign as “State” but then noticed the inclusion of “[the People]” in your quote…but I think the substance of my objection still stands.
    I think that when the People determine, in a democratic (here I mean the mob-rule aspect of the “tyranny of the majority”) sense, that a particular course is in order and they make no appeal to any moral foundation (either through God’s law or at least through natural law), they do so arbitrarily and, in my view, illegitimately.
    Put another way: murder is wrong not because the People deemed its prohibition important, but because, either through an appeal to God’s law or through an intellectual understanding of natural law, it’s wrong. The People are just restating a truth that precedes them and, thankfully, agreeing with it.
    However, when the People determine that it is important that anyone of any biological gender can choose to “identify” as whatever they desire, so as to use the bathroom facilities of the opposite biological gender…this isn’t consonant with at least natural law as it gives license for sexual predators to abuse the system…forget the plumbing questions, whether biological or facility. Further, when the representatives of the People, in the form of the city government of Houston, not only reject a valid voter petition on corrupt charges but also subpoena speeches and personal communications from pastors unrelated to the lawsuit brought against the city by the organizers of the voter petition, this is precisely a tyrannical situation…as it derives from no legitimate authority other than being created out of the whim of the People.
    Rousseau appears to suggest that the People is answerable to no one, as he labeled them “sole”. That’s clearly wrong, if I am understanding him. Rousseau correctly identifies the consequences of relativism with respect to laws, but his solution is just that the will of the People stands supreme…which is also tyranny absent any legitimate appeal to, at the very least, natural law. His solution invariably shifts the chaos of relativism from the legal realm to the moral realm; he hasn’t solved it.
    How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course? I would interpret that Rousseau would admit to no such appeal could exist in the first place and that the will of the People would overrule the protest of the Individual.

  • Getting into a person’s face without his admission is assault. Demanding a person’s countenance without his consent is slavery, piracy… tyranny. Hauling a person into court for denying his countenance and his personal space to another is legal assault…legal harassment.
    The gay couple pursuing the Knapps in a court of law are inflicting legal assault and battery; refusing to acknowledge the Knapp’s freedom to come and go in good will; the Knapp’s civil right to assemble peaceably and be secure in their Blessings of Liberty.
    We know that legal assault and battery in a frivolous lawsuit and being charged legal fees and the cost of defending themselves in a court of law and not being acknowledged as having any civil freedom, and being hauled into court to give a good account of themselves and their citizenship, the Knapps are being victimized.

  • John by another name: “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course? I would interpret that Rousseau would admit to no such appeal could exist in the first place and that the will of the People would overrule the protest of the Individual.”
    I am oversimplifying your great scholarship and I may even be mistaken. However, with atheism, the individual human person is overruled by the mob mentality. Without God and God’s natural law, the people become a mob of unruled mercenaries.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: “” This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; “”…in another person’s choice of freedom, not his own individual choice of freedom. We have here the right to choose, freedom of abortion or else…,
    People of Faith come together to constitute our nation through good will and the Holy Spirit of Peace. The people have good will towards one another, our neighbors. Atheism inspires anarchy: “You will be free according to how I tell you to be free.” The transparent Great Liar. Only God can make sense of freedom.

  • John by any other name asked, “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course?”

    Rousseau has already answered it: there is no common superior to decide between the individual and the public, no one who can arbitrate the question.

    Of course, Rousseau is thinking of democracy, as practiced in the cantons of his native Switzerland, “The idea was that the grown men met in the market-place, like the peasants of Glarus under their trees, to manage their affairs, making and unmaking officials, conferring and revoking powers. They were equal, because every man had exactly the same right to defend his interest by the guarantee of his vote. The welfare of all was safe in the hands of all, for they had not the separate interests that are bred by the egotism of wealth, nor the exclusive views that come from a distorted education. All being equal in power and similar in purpose, there can be no just cause why some should move apart and break into minorities.”

    He spoke of representative government with biting contempt. “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: when it is necessary to meet in council, they name deputies and stay at home. By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.”

  • Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “John by any other name asked, “How would Rousseau handle the hypothetical situation where the People are following a societal / legal route that imposes something on all, and an Individual stands up, makes a coherent and rational appeal to natural law to argue against said course?””
    Conscientious objectors are citizens who respect their neighbors, and who object to their neighbors’ views, and who cannot participate in or support human sacrifice, sodomy, slavery and human rights violations, in Justice. Conscientious objectors are recognized and respected by the government, and are given the freedom to conscientiously object.
    Only those people who are trusted are allowed admission to the personal space and countenance of each and every citizen. The government regulates and licenses public accommodation to secure freedom and safety for consumers. The Knapps have refused to countenance ss couples, thereby, the government regulation and licensing are not put into effect until such time as the proprietors open themselves up to any potential customer. Otherwise, the ss couple are invaders into the personal space and countenance of the proprietors of any business.
    Sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator” at the onset of existence guarantees conscientious objection through the human beings’ ability to reason. To reason that an action may be detrimental to one’s eternal life and decline participation is to exercise Freedom of Religion and conscientious objection. People who choose to have no religion may not infringe on the freedom of believers.

Ted Cruz on the Courts Mandating Gay Marriage

Monday, October 6, AD 2014



At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address



God bless the Federal judiciary!  After having such a smashing success in “resolving” the abortion issue by legalizing it, they have “resolved” the gay marriage debate by mandating it.  Senator Ted Cruz (R.Tx.) is having none of it:

The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ted Cruz on the Courts Mandating Gay Marriage

  • May the Lord bless Ted Cruz as a he speaks in defense of Right. We know how he will be (and has been) attacked so we pray that he and others (who know and will speak the truth) will not lose heart. Mary Mother of God pray for us.

  • Our hope is that our Supreme Court would weigh and consider that correspondence of our laws with Right and Truth, as we have recognized and accepted corporately in our Constitution, so that our right and liberties might be maintained.
    Instead the Supreme Court may be presiding over state suicide by disintegration.
    Here is a thought from Orestes Brownson (The Americanrepublic) “ I ….still maintain that the sovereignty of the American Republic vests in the States, though in the States collectively, or united, not severally, and thus escape alike consolidation and disintegration.”

  • OK, so I found and read Sen. Cruz’ bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2024/text) which was mercifully short and as far as I can tell, right to the point. Of course, since I read law about as well as I read Sanskrit, there are possible nuances there which most likely evade me. So, I ask the panel assembled:
    Is this bill simply stating that, if it becomes law, State legislatures will be the final arbiters in the matter, and that it is in those august chambers the battles will contend, placing the issue beyond the scope of Federal courts at any level?
    If so, then hurrah for Sen. Cruz.
    Of course, any time that any government body claims that they have the right to define marriage, Mark 10:6-9 come to mind. Huh.

  • “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose of earth shall be loosed in heaven”
    Has the Supreme Court imparted procreative powers on same sex couples?
    “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Same sex “marriage” needs to be put on the ballot.
    The Supreme Court is allowing sodomists to redefine our civilization, to redefine our marriage. After the Court defined Dred Scott as three-quarters of a person and the sovereign person in the womb, who constitutes our sovereign nation from the very first moment of his existence, as non-existent, people are lucky to be born before the Court says that you and I are non-existent, non-persons.
    God, in heaven, the Father of us all, will be dictated to by a Court who believes that it is a Church established by Christ. If the Court believes itself to be a church, then, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” ought to decide for themselves the matter of same-sex wives.
    And there above the Court are the Ten Commandments for all to see and know: “God save this Court.”
    Ted Cruz refused to give the murderers in the room countenance.

  • Our most precious civil right is our right to rule ourselves. The Federal judiciary seems very unclear on the concept of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    The judiciary have fewer excuses. The problem is all over the haut bourgeois, really. I’ve got academics in my family whose understanding of ‘democratic choice’ is that they get what they want.

  • Anywho, my guess is that Roberts sided with the liberal justices to deny writ on the cases. Whether he did so because he agrees with the lower court decisions, or because he does not think a majority would reverse them (given Kenedy’s disgraceful record), who knows. At least this leaves a slim reed for a future SCOTUS to support real marriage.

  • One or more of the liberal justices could have made up the difference to reach four justices for review. My guess is that none of the justices, including perhaps Kennedy, are entirely sure which way he will jump.

  • “Questioning the moral character of Christians dying for their faith, the very ones that are being raped, beheaded, sold into slavery, and basically exterminated in an epic scale not seen since World War II is not something to be proud of nor cheerleading.”

    Rubbish. The people in that room who booed Cruz due to their overweening hatred of Jews deserve to have their moral character questioned. It was the equivalent of people seeking our aid against the Nazis in World War II booing our British allies. If they do not want our aid because of our relationship with Israel, I guess they will have to depend on the good will of their Arab muslim “brothers”. Lots of luck.

  • Well this thread went completely off topic and I was as much at fault as anyone. I am deleting the off topic comments and shutting down this thread.


Thursday, May 1, AD 2014

I am shocked, shocked, that Notre Dame, which honored Obama when he opposed gay marriage, blocks the speech of a group on campus that opposes gay marriage.  Father Z gives us the details:

More news from the school that gave the most aggressive anti-Catholic pro-abortion politician we have probably ever seen an honorary doctorate in law (of all things).

From the TFP site:

Young Catholics Not Welcome at the University of Notre Dame By Peter Miller April 29, 2014 Officials at the University of Notre Dame revoke permission for pro-marriage table, tell young Catholics to “cease and desist” promoting natural marriage on campus.

Sound Bend, Indiana: April 29, 2014 — Young volunteers with Tradition Family Property Student Action were ordered to “cease and desist” promoting traditional marriage at the University of Notre Dame on Friday, April 25.

“Permission to have a table had been granted through an officially recognized on-campus student group,” said TFP Student Action director John Ritchie.  “But that permission was revoked for some odd reason.  Police officers arrived soon after we started giving out pro-family literature and cut the event short, informing us that we were no longer welcome to talk to students about the importance of preserving the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, which fully agrees with 2,000 years of Catholic teaching,” Ritchie explained.

The TFP handout, 10 Reasons Why Same-Sex “Marriage” is Harmful and Must Be Opposed, was being warmly received by students and faculty members alike. However, several pro-homosexual students ripped up the flier, shouted obscenities, and expressed their desire to deprive the pro-true marriage volunteers of their right to free speech.


Read the rest there and find links.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Shock!

  • While the campus may have acted (overreacted) unfortunately, there seems to be some hint (checking my own sources) that this was a student group not comprised of Notre Dame students who were using a ND student permit to run the table. I do not excuse ND in all things pro-life-related, but here, there seems to have been a violation of campus rules (getting an ND-approved table for a student group for another non-ND student group).

    Perhaps the rules are selectively enforced, but that information isn’t available, and I would hesitate (perhaps due to my own charitable desires) to imply it.

    Apparently, the group also brought cameras and videocameras, and were recording students, similarly without permission.

  • Notre Dame is a public square, not a private entity. If some of the people were not Notre Dame students they ought to have been respected as other than students. The abuse to which these other than students were subject to really is a disgrace. Communists and criminals would have been treated better.

  • As far as video cameras goes, almost every store videos customers. It is the dissemination of the video that needs permission of the captured people.

  • “Notre Dame is a public square, not a private entity.”

    Actually, Notre Dame is NOT a public square. And it IS a private entity. I don’t wish to disagree with you to be argumentative, but rather because it is an important distinction that works to protect Catholics. Private Catholic entities do not have to provide a forum to those whose viewpoints are deemed objectionable to them. Next time, it could be a group seeking to promote teachings contrary to the Catholic Faith, and it is important to emphasize that Notre Dame – or any other Catholic institution – is NOT a public square and do NOT have to provide a forum for such viewpoints.

  • “Notre Dame is a public square, not a private entity.”

    Notre Dame IS a private entity, and as such, can exclude non-Notre Dame students, people, etc., at will. Moreover, it is free to exclude those (such as non-Notre Dame students) who abuse privileges (such as ND student tables) that ND offers to its students.

    I think ND reacted exactly how the student group wished – and now the student group can claim that ND is anti-Catholic. That is unfortunate.

    However, there are any number of free lectures on pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Catholic issues that occur at ND, student discussion groups, seminars, etc., that occur at Notre Dame without interruption by the administration (or even with outright advertisement by the administration). These students broke campus rules on student tables and dissemination, and therefore, could be excluded.

    See, e.g.,





  • As leftists have dominated American campuses, they have become citadels of intolerance. FIRE is a good resource:


    In regard to Notre Dame and free speech:


    Private institutions have to play by their own self-imposed rules when it comes to free speech issues.

  • Absolutely, Donald – the keys being in your words “play by their own rules” and in ND’s policy “Notre Dame students and student organizations are free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately.”

    In this case, apparently, the students involved were not Notre Dame students, and the organization, while working through another group that apparently only acted to set up the table, was not an ND student group. I say “apparently” because details are still coming out.

  • I suspect the interpretation of this episode most congenial to Notre Dame’s rancid administration is that they blanched when they found out TFP was on campus. Sandra Miesel has referred to TFP as a “RadTrad cult”, and advises all faithful Catholics to stay clear of it. One of their signatures is to stand outside the Church during Mass reciting rapid-fire rosaries, entering only when communion is about to be distributed. Critics such as Miesel have contended that TFP eats up the youth of its members, leaving them approaching middle-age with neither Tradition nor Family nor Property. I know an attorney associated with Una Voce and his local Latin Mass Community who got a visit from a youth in TFP many years ago. The conversation did not go well. It started out thus, “First, if you want to recruit me, don’t show up in my office in a cape….”

  • The offense to free speech of course Jonathan could also be by the administration’s action depriving students interested in hearing and reading what a group on campus has to say, whether the group consists of students or not. Suits against private institutions over free speech are often highly entertaining because their policies regarding free speech are often full of “feel good” language which the administrators who draft them, I truly hope they are usually not attorneys, fail to understand constitute a contract.

  • Art.

    What a terrible act from a so-called TFP representative. I have had exactly the opposite experience with this group.
    I participated in a prayerful protest in Madison WI. that was respectful and dignified. The Catholic priest was local, and rightfully praised the east coast group for its efforts to Stand Up for Jesus when Blasphemy is portrayed as art.

    Not many Catholics are willing to give peaceful prayerful protests in the public square. Courage is a rare thing these days. Easier to text tweet and twaddle than stand erect and give good honest testimony.

    I’m afraid your friend met a disgruntled TFP drop out.

  • TFP draws its inspiration from Corrêa de Oliveira, a Throne & Altar Conservative, somewhere to the right of Prince Metterniche and Joseph de Maistre.

    Art Deco’s description calls to mind the Camelots du Roi of Charles Maurras and l’ Action Française.

  • I’ve read Prof. Correa’s book. He’s a great one-man manufactory of obscure verbiage.

  • I actually agree to some degree with Art Deco.

    I’ve heard stories where the followers of T.F.P. can actually see a glowing cross on the founders forehead (in Brazil).

    Among other such stories.

    The T.F.P. has not asked to operate in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, yet they participate in active recruitment in various archdiocesan parishes.

    But that’s the bad I have heard.

    I am very impressed by their organizing abilities and the defense of Catholic teachings.

  • Jay Anderson, Jonathan, and Donald McClarey: Thank you for the correction. I am listening and learning. It does seem, that when Notre Dame threw open the gate to Obama, N.D. threw open the gate to everybody.

  • TFP has been leading the way in a universal Public Square Rosary campaign. Last year over 12,300 cities around the globe participated. Publicly asking Heaven to intercede for our darkened world. Over 13,000 cities this Oct. is a worthy goal. Each city praying the same formatted prayers and Holy Rosary at noon.

    I guess with TFP take the good and leave the bad.
    Personally I’ve only witnessed good thus far, but I do value opposing views since this is of mans efforts.

  • Yes, Mary, that is precisely why I hang out around here, among other reasons. I have had as many eye openers here in the last six months as in all other religious sites combined. Don should be proud.

  • Pingback: Catholic Takeover of Late-Night Comedy by Stephen Colbert - Big Pulpit
  • Another win for the heckler’s veto.

  • Hasn’t the local ordinary publicly proclaimed that heathen school isn’t Catholic yet?

  • ND allows the far left but not the far right? Free speech is free speech. So, ND has right to set their own rules. If the rules were more catholic in their scope perhaps the students would at least have a better chance of hearing all sides. I’d rather not have ND conduit the left, but since they do, it would be good to allow rad trads too.

  • As much as I would like to file this under “Catholic Administrations befogged by Leftist Lunacy Muzzle Faithful Students”, something seems missing with this story and, as much of a “Taliban Catholic” as I am, I’m not ready to draw my scimitar without a little more information.

  • How I long for and pray for the days when Catholic nuns and holy Sisters taught in the field of Catholic Education. Not only were the tenets of Catholicism taught, but the respect they commanded by their sacrifice made the public institutions sit up and take notice.

  • rt Deco wrote, “He’s [Corrêa de Oliveira] a great one-man manufactory of obscure verbiage.”

    Crisp, clear statements of Fascist doctrine tended to go out of fashion after WWII, except among the clergy of the SSPX

Tolerance and Graciousness in the Gay Marriage Debate

Thursday, March 6, AD 2014

A blogger named Dennis Sanders has written about the recent controversy in Arizona from the perspective of a gay man (“married” and “a man of the cloth”, he says). There are two main ideas in his piece, one that is the centerpiece and another that is peripheral but also important. The centerpiece is that “marriage equality” advocates (I will call them same-sex marriage, or SSM advocates) ought to recognize that the refusal of orthodox Christians to participate in gay weddings is not necessarily or even often attributable to hatred and bigotry. Though SSM advocates may not understand or condone the religious and philosophical arguments we put forward, it would be better for society if people on both sides could stop assuming the absolute worst of one another. The peripheral argument is that this proposed change of tone and behavior on the part of gay marriage activists is necessary if they are to be gracious winners in the culture war. It is Sanders’ belief, shared by many on his side of the argument, that they have won this war even if we on the other side have not surrendered yet. His language is civil and conciliatory, though one still cannot help but feel that the main point here is “let the babies have their bottles.”

As far as the first argument goes, I am all for it. Though I am sure that Mr. Sanders would be deeply offended or perhaps just annoyed at my refusal to recognize his relationship with another man as a marriage, I have always been a proponent of true and authentic tolerance. Sanders quotes another writer on tolerance, and both he and this writer agree with me: tolerance is only possible in relation to something or someone we dislike. I dislike the “marriage equality” movement immensely, not simply because of some passages from the Bible, but because of its concentrated philosophical and political attack on the natural law foundations of Western civilization. Its incessant self-comparison to black civil rights struggles is as fallacious as it is nauseating; its core assumptions, taken to their fullest implications, are anarchistic and nihilistic. It is precisely because the vast majority of ordinary people rarely take their stated beliefs to their logical conclusions that I am able and willing to tolerate most of those beliefs. I believe we can have a pluralistic society, governed by the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, in which different people in different polities can establish different laws and customs by which they live. Furthermore, they can and should peacefully co-exist within the same American nation. Such was, I believe, the vision of our founding fathers.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Tolerance and Graciousness in the Gay Marriage Debate

  • I agree with every word in your essay, Bonchamps. Now, if we can only prevent the Supreme Court from rewriting natural law, our constitutional posterity will be spared much harm.

  • I agree with you in the long view Bonchamps. Those today treating believing Christians as pariahs will face the children, and grandchildren of those people, with ever waning ranks as ours wax. Philosophies at war with reproduction are doomed to be ephemeral.

  • I do not see the Russian government ever kowtowing to the homosexualist movement. Russia has a long distrust of the West – with some good reason, seeing how often Russia has been attacked through its history – Napoleon, World War I, and Hitler are just three of these events. Homosexualism is seen as a Western threat against Mother Russia and its Orthodox Church.

    I don’t see Hinduism and homosexualism ever getting along. Radical Hindus often attach Indian Catholics. They won’t put up with homosexuals demanding marriage.

    Islam will NEVER officially tolerate homosexualism. The stronger the movement grows in the West, the angrier the Muslim on the street will become, riled up by Muslim clergy who hate the US to begin with.

    The West seems to be hell bent on destroying itself. It will be the Church, the Remnant, that picks up the pieces and starts over again – just what happened when the Roman Empire collapsed.

  • So his idea is that they should recognize that we are not haters, and that they should be gracious winners.

    The law of nature says that eventually the tide will go out. People can only deny the truth for so long. I think people long for, reach for, aspire to Goodness and Truth and Beauty even if as individuals and communally we take long circuitous routes. Because I love some of those SSAttracted people I hope that when the tide goes out on them that we will truly be gracious.

  • I don’t think Hindus or Muslims or Russians or anybody else is immune to the type of emotional manipulation and thoroughly integrated and institutionalized propaganda we have been soaked in since the time of Kinsey if not before. Read “After the Ball..”

  • Pingback: The Daily Capybara & a Bit of Legend - BigPulpit.com
  • What’s tragic about this is that 58% of RC’s support gay marriage. Check this article out –WHY DO A MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS THINK GOD IS WRONG ABOUT MARRIAGE?


  • “[A]nd no, it is not in Leviticus – those passages, as I have often argued to the point of exasperation, should never be used by proponents of traditional marriage”

    Bravo, Bonchamps!

    I have always contended that it was a dreadful mistake to conflate arguments over the morality of sodomy with the analysis of the legal and social rôle of marriage.

    The enormous opposition to SSM in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France can be accounted for by this exclusive focus. There, the Code of 1804 contains no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” [Marriage points out the father] (Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1). In other words, marriage establishes the juridical bond between fathers and their children and ensures, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide.

    There, for opponents of SSM, the important moral question has been the defence of the ethical principle, enshrined in the law of France, that a child cannot be the subject or source of a transaction. They can see that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerated a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter, through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples. I would add that those Americans who have viewed with equanimity the development of this form of human trafficking by opposite-sex couples have cut the ground for a principled opposition to SSM from under their feet. Instead, they have allowed their opposition to appear both sectarian and homophobic.

  • Well said Bonchamps! I, too, am exasperated when I hear people fall back on back on “the bible says so.” Natural law arguments are accessible to every mind. Even the obstinately closed minded people don’t find good reasoning against natural law, so they are forced to dismiss what they know to be obvious. The obvious fact that man and woman, for example, are designed for each other.
    It is also irritates me when somebody says they believe it because they are Catholic. No, we believe what is true and Catholics are called to pursue truth aided by natural law. The radio host, SH, frequently makes statements that weaken the clarity of our case for the truth.

  • Kevin: “the clarity of our case for the truth”
    The truth of SSM is that no man can become a wife and no woman can become a husband by wanting to. The reality of SSM is that “We, the people”, who are all created equal, and therefore, ought to be treated equal and equal treatment is only possible in the truth, are being subjected to falsehood, perjury in a court of law, and being forced by the law to discriminate against the truth and allow the social lie that same sex orientation, an act of God and creation, legitimatizes and allows the free will act of sodomy and or masturbation and other self abuse. Sodomy is assault and battery of another person. One cannot consent to commit crime and remain in the truth. Sodomy is a crime, an assault and battery of the human body, and a violation of the truth of another person’s immortal soul.
    The truth of another person’s immortal soul is our truth, as truth belongs to all people, for all time.

  • Penguins Fan
    I do not see the Russian government ever kowtowing to the homosexualist movement.

    Russia is desperate for more people– especially young ones. Quoth a good doctor, Russia needs Russians.

    Similar mindset, different point of the process.

  • The problem with natural law arguments is that, as far as I know, they can’t really be argued. They are presented, and the person hearing them accepts them to the extent of his capacity. They can remind people of what they already know, or make them realize what they intuitively know, but they can’t touch those who dismiss them either out of lack of understanding or obstinance.

  • There’s an excellent First Things article out there that you should read, Bonchamps, if you have not done so already – http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

  • Thank you Jonathon for that article.

  • Very welcome, Anzlyne – I think it makes some excellent points.

Private Discrimination Is As American As Apple Pie

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014




Ben Domenech at The Federalist actually understands what the law is regarding homosexuals and private vendors:

Let’s get a few things straight. Jim Crow for gays was not prevented by Jan Brewer’s veto of their religious liberty bill last night. Indeed, most Arizona businesses – like most businesses across the country – are free under the law to discriminate according to sexual orientation or anything of the kind. The bipartisan group of law professors who helped draft legislation like this in other states – many of whom support gay marriage themselves – were the ignored parties in all the coverage of this story, as amateur legal minds screamed of legalizing all sorts of terrible things which are in reality already legal. Ilya Shapiro, one of Cato’s brightest thinkers, went even further in undermining the case against this law:

SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” – laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice – but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category). The prototypical scenario that SB 1062 is meant to prevent is the case of the New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. This photographer doesn’t refuse to provide services to gay clients, but felt that she couldn’t participate in the celebration of a gay wedding. There’s also the Oregon bakery that closed rather than having to provide wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. Why should these people be forced to engage in activity that violates their religious beliefs? For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.

Some context is necessary here. In the wake of the curtailing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states have pursued a host of mini-RFRAs which include protections for religious liberty. Attorneys and law professors who support gay marriage, such as Doug Laycock, have worked alongside attorneys from national faith groups to create legal language designed to follow the national RFRA’s model. This movement has recently fallen prey to the problems of any movement led by lawyers: it has seen a host of things that are benign in a legal context being misconstrued – or purposely lied about – to foment rage against things which are already legal, and ought to be in a society which values religious liberty. Kansas became the most recent example for pushback over the language proposed by these legal experts, though freelance efforts in other states have been even less successful (South Dakota didn’t even get out of committee).

The majority of the language in these bills, such as that related to maximum extent, is a cut and paste from the federal RFRA (of course, it’s a real question whether Chuck Schumer’s bill could pass today).  These lawyers have attempted to ensure that those with sincerely held religious beliefs retain their ability to live and work in the public square without being compelled by the force of government – likely due to the ruling of a court – to do something which runs against their beliefs. Kevin Williamson notes the danger of this judicial fiat: “If anything, it is much more likely in 2014 that a business exhibiting authentic malice toward homosexuals would be crushed under the socio-economic realities of the current climate. That is a good thing for two reasons: One is that genuine hostility toward gay Americans is today a distinctly minority inclination but one that still should be challenged. The second is that it is a far healthier thing for that challenge to take place on the battleground of civil society rather than in the courts and legislatures.” But then again: “We are a Puritanical nation, which doesn’t mean we hate sex (the Puritans loved sex). It means that we are profoundly anti-Catholic and prone to stamping out dissenters. We used to use social consensus and economic pressure where we didn’t use convictions to accomplish this. Now we use the Supreme Court.”

The reality is that discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodation and in numerous other ways is for the most part totally legal at the state level. Yes, this crazy Jim Crow reality that has been fearmongered to death is already the law in most states. Most people think it’s illegal, but it isn’t – last night I heard a sports radio host describing America as a place where “no one has any right to deny anyone any service any time for any reason”, which is pretty much the opposite of freedom of association. But while it is legal, it rarely comes up – because it is so infrequently an issue! It turns out most Southern Baptists are perfectly happy to take gay couples’ money and bake them a cake. The pursuit of a positive Yelp review can be a powerful motivator.

But – and here’s the real focal point of this issue – they should be free to choose not to. And those who favor human liberty should be in favor of defending this status quo. Elizabeth Scalia writes: “I feel like I’m watching my gay friends get mauled and then watching my Catholic friends get mauled, both by people who have lost the ability to do anything but feel and seethe.” Elevating emotion (even understandable emotion) over reason is precisely what statists do and have done for centuries, and something libertarians (and too few conservatives) rightfully decry. The end point of overreaching government is a reality where believers are forced to bake a cake to celebrate an act they view as sinful, but under no circumstances can they serve unlimited brunch.

If you believe markets work, if you believe people work, then you should have faith that legitimate bigotry will be punished by the marketplace. So Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A and all the cakemakers who only make heteronormative cake will see their business drop because they were anti-women or anti-gay or what have you. Giving the government the power to punish them – which really amounts to giving elite trial lawyers that power – is madness if you believe in people and markets. Decisions made by free people within markets will sort themselves out better than giving courts and government and bureaucrats the power to do the sorting. No one will shop at the Nazi store without being judged for shopping at the Nazi store, so we don’t need government to ban the Nazi store.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Private Discrimination Is As American As Apple Pie

  • “The Civil Rights Acts that banned discrimination on the basis of race by private vendors were unusual legislative acts based on an unusual situation: state governments that mandated such discrimination by private businesses. It took government action to break down such government mandated discrimination.”
    The state does not own the sovereign person. The sovereign person constitutes the state.

  • in the case of the cake/baker…I would make the cake and make it with a really bad recipe or not get the order right or something like that! Or say that proceeds of all sales go to trad marriage groups.

  • Diane: When one’s heart is not in creating a beautiful cake, believe you me, that cake will not be, without any help from God.

  • The requirement that people exercising certain public callings are obliged to deal with all comers is very ancient and can be traced back to the rubric in the Praetorian edict Caupones Nautae Stabularii. It included innkeepers, livery stables and common carriers, wharfingers and the like. It is linked to their strict liability for loss and may have been intended to protect travelling strangers from exploitation.

    In Scotland, the acts of 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not, if in the one case a client and in the other the court pleases to insist on it, unless otherwise engaged (sometimes known as the “cab rank principle”) This is based on the Faculty’s exclusive right of audience – the price paid for a monopoly. I believe the charters of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons contain similar provisions, but whether they would ground an action, I do not know.

    Certainly, freedom of contract is the rule and, until very modern times, exceptions were rare.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Certainly, freedom of contract is the rule and, until very modern times, exceptions were rare.”
    In any contract violation, damages must be proven. Here the plaintiffs are charging violation of their civil rights as damage, insult to their God-given freedom of peaceable assembly, but is it peaceable assembly? indoctrinating the entire nation in sodomy is not peaceable assembly. Using the power of the state to demand license against the civil rights of all other people, and extort tribute in the form of assent and penalties.
    Having read my last statement it appears to me that it describes the state of affairs of Obamacare.

  • True : “people who thought conceding gay marriage would end this argument were deluding themselves -” DMcClarey

  • Is it no different than having apartment complexes and being forced to rent to gay couples? Is it no different than having an antique shop and having a large portion of your customers who are gay? Is it no different than having to rent to unmarried couples when it goes against everything you believe in? These laws are forced down our throats and whoa to the person who says one thing! The “norms” of society have changed? Such a mess we are in. There is a big difference it seems in the cases of businesses that offer the consumer to come in and shop, vs me gay person insisting that you bake me a cake or take my picture when you know how uncomfortable you are making me feel. If there are 50 photographer/cake bakers in your city and I am the ONLY one who does not want your business why would you even want me to do that? Unless you are trying to prove your nasty right. Kind of reminds me of Roe v Wade. No one even had an abortion but they proved their nasty point now didn’t they?

  • Liberals already discriminate against us. Turn about is fair play.

  • Pingback: Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty - God & Caesar

Gay Thought Police Take Note

Sunday, January 26, AD 2014

Thought Police



Larryd at Acts of the Apostasy has a first rate response to the attempts by gay activists to coerce businesses into providing services for gay marriages:


As more states allow so-called same-sex marriages, either by vote or governmental fiat, more and more small businesses owned by committed Christians, such as this bakery in Oregon, will be pressured to act contrary to their religious beliefs, and be forced to close, or fined beyond their ability to pay.

However, it needn’t be that way. At all.

While I commend and applaud the bakery owners cited in the above story, and fully stand behind them and other business owners in the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, it must be understood that the instigators aren’t being motivated by matters constitutional. These gay activists aren’t looking for justice under the law per se; their goal is the minimization and outright obliteration of any Christian influence within the marketplace. They detest the influence of Christian morals, and have found a means by which they can reduce said influence, under the agreeable guise of “equality”: filing discrimination lawsuits against small business owners.

And for now, it appears they are winning.  Courts have been ruling in their favor – rightly or wrongly – and with each victory, the gay activists are becoming more emboldened, and momentum is on their side.

It’s time to put an end to that right now, and there’s a legal way to do it. A way that respects the religious beliefs of the small business owners. A way that eliminates the “rights vs rights” battle.

Let’s use the example of the Christian bakery owner. All he would need to do is enact a company policy stating that some level of the profit, up to and including 100%, from any wedding reception contract, will be donated to organizations and/or candidates who support traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. This policy would have to be publicly posted within his establishment so as to remove any doubt from any customer where he stands on the issue. Thus, gay activists who want to order their cake from that bakery would understand in clear and precise terms that they will be funding organizations and/or candidates who stand for traditional marriage. Furthermore, this policy would affect every and any customer wishing to order a cake – gay, straight, whomever.  Every wedding cake. Every platter of cannolis. Every dessert cart. That would eliminate any charge of discrimination, because everyone’s order would be helping to fund, say, the Family Research Council, or NOM.

If you think about it, there is nothing new about this. Large corporations publicize who they support all the time, and people decide whether or not to patronize them. Boycotts have been waged against Target and Walmart and other companies, for instance. It’s a thing. What I’m proposing is a bit more assertive, especially for small businesses and proprietorship, but it might be the protection – or at least a stopgap measure – they need.

Imagine it – Michael and Justin enter a bakery wanting to order a cake from John 3:16 Baked Goods.  The owner sits down with them as they look over his portfolio, and select cake #19.

“How much for #19?” they ask, fully expecting him to tell them he can’t in good conscience make cake #19 for their reception. Their lawyer’s phone number is on their iPhone’s speed dial, and they’re ready to hit send.

But the owner doesn’t go there. Instead he says, “Well, that cake goes for $1500. But let me remind you guys – John 3:16 Baked Goods’ policy is that 100% of wedding contract profits goes to NOM, and I make about 10% on #19. So you’d be donating $150 to NOM, for all intents and purposes. Just so you know.”

“B..but we don’t want our money going to NOM!” they exclaim.

“Well, guys, here’s the thing about business. I provide a service for which you pay me money. Once you give me a check, it’s no longer your money. It’s my money, and last time I checked, I have the right to spend my money any way I please. But I feel it’s fair to tell you the store policy when it comes to any and all wedding reception contracts.”

At which point, Michael and Justin leave the store in a huff, and John 3:16 Baked Goods isn’t dragged into court. Because let’s face it – no militant gay activist will ever do anything to support traditional marriage. Their goal is to destroy and dismantle, and the very thought of any money going to organizations and candidates opposed to them – especially money from a check they just wrote – would prevent them from signing a contract.

Mind you, this won’t prevent persecution, or bad press, or personal attacks. And the bakery risks losing other business because, unfortunately, a good number of Christians don’t see a problem with so-called same-sex marriage. But the baker stays in business – earning a lower profit, mind you, I understand that – in order to provide for his family and his employees. And he’s witnessing to his faith, and putting his money where his mouth is. And every Christian baker that stays in the marketplace is good for the faith, and ultimately the marketplace is better for it.

Such a policy can be used by any business that provides wedding services – florists, photographers, limousines, and the like.  It takes the “rights vs rights” element off the table, and turns it into a financial/economic circumstance. No discrimination. No bias. Merely a public company policy, informing customers upfront where the money will be going.

And believe me – like-minded Christians and traditional marriage supporters will flock and rush to help these businesses.  So any lost profits from the wedding side of their business would be compensated. I truly believe that.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Gay Thought Police Take Note

  • On a serious note. My children and I “Trick or Treated for Unicef, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. Everybody did in the 1970s. We later learned that the money collected and donated by our children went to buy guns. I see UNICEF America is seeking funds which will probably be used to elect Obama a third time or Hillary Clinton.
    As for Pope Francis and his social Justice, the unborn souls, aborted, aren’t buying it. Perhaps, equal Justice under the law is a more fitting topic.

  • Oh, I just remembered. The United Nations population agenda will use the UNICEF money to abort babies to end hunger. This was the rationale for fighting cancer in the 1970s. Abort the baby so he will not have cancer when he is 70 years old. I kid you not.

  • e Pluribus Odium

  • Do what Christ would do: Live, and let live.

  • That is hardly what Christ would do, as the money changers would attest.

  • Pingback: Gays and Justice - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
  • Pingback: Gays and Justice - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  • I admire the ingenuity. But isn’t this close to doing evil for a good result? I assume the whole point of objecting to providing a service for a SSM is that it would cause you to cooperate in an evil. Now there may be arguments that it is remote/immaterial or something, but I am assuming the objector objects because he does not believe it to be so. Therefore, how do you get around the prohibition against using evil means for a good end?

  • “Therefore, how do you get around the prohibition against using evil means for a good end?”
    The main problem with providing a service to a gay marriage is participating in an evil act which causes scandal. The scandal element is largely neutered by using the money received to combat the evil one was forced to participate in by the state, and by giving wide publicity to the fact that you are doing this. The force element from the state frees one from the prohibition against using evil means. The evil means, the gay marriage, is not chosen, but rather participation is forced by the state. If someone could simply opt out of providing such services, that would be a different case, but the state is mandating such participation and that fact allows a greater latitude in the tactics to be used in response. Christ and the tax to Caesar is instructive. Christ does not come out and say the tax should be paid or not paid. Instead he says that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are Gods. An ostensibly simple answer that leaves up to the hearer to determine just what is Caesar’s and what is God’s and also to determine what, if anything, should be done if the State decides that what is God’s, in the opinion of the hearer, should be rendered unto Caesar.

  • “Christ does not come out and say the tax should be paid or not paid. Instead he says that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are Gods. An ostensibly simple answer that leaves up to the hearer to determine just what is Caesar’s and what is God’s and also to determine what, if anything, should be done if the State decides that what is God’s, in the opinion of the hearer, should be rendered unto Caesar.”
    Donald R. McClarey is your legal name, but Donald R. McClarity, has been you nickname since I signed on this page. Clarity by any other name would be so clear.

  • Why thank you Mary! That is one of the kinder variants on my last name that I have encountered over the years.

Sorry Mr. Franklin, We Couldn’t

Wednesday, June 26, AD 2013

I was going to provide an analysis of both of the Supreme Court decisions today related to gay marriage, but instead I will focus on Hollingsworth v. Perry, which was concerned with California’s Prop 8. But first a couple of thoughts about US v. Windsor, the DOMA case. The immediate short-term impact of the case is somewhat limited in scope. Federal benefits will be conferred upon same-sex couples who live in states that recognize their partnership as marriage. The long-term impact, however, is much starker, as will be explained in a moment.

Both Justices Alito and Scalia provide blistering dissents, and they should be read in full. They disagree on a technical though not insignificant point about the standing of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG (and for the record, I tend to side with Alito). First of all, Scalia properly notes that, despite the rhetoric in Kennedy’s opinion, this was not a federalism case, or at least the case was not decided on federalism grounds. In fact, contrary to exhortations of some so-called libertarians on twitter, this case has the ultimate effect of further eroding states’ rights regarding same-sex marriage. Had this case been decided on federalism (10th amendment) grounds, then the outcome would have been possibly justifiable. But the majority’s reliance on 5th and 14th amendment concerns – effectively relying on the absurd legal doctrine of substantive due process – runs completely counter to the federalism argument, and paves the way for future challenges to state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Justice Scalia recognizes this farce for what it is, and reminds the public of the exchange between these two very same Justices ten years ago to the date in Lawrence v. Texas. Then Justice Kennedy assured us all that striking down anti-sodomy laws would not eventually be used as a rationale for upending traditional marriage, and Scalia scoffed at him in the dissent. Well, guess who’s looking prophetic now. Even left-wing pundit David Corn (gleefully, this case) acknowledges Scalia’s prescience. Kennedy, backed up by the obtuse Chief Justice, assures us that nothing in this decision interferes with state decision-making on marriage. Once again Scalia scoffs, and, sadly, at some point in the future he will no doubt be proven right.

As for the Prop 8 case: my what a tangled web. I have been defending Chief Justice Roberts’s decision (joined, I may remind you, by Antonin Scalia along with three of the Court’s leftists) on the grounds that had the case been decided on the merits, it is quite possible that the same 5-4 majority in Windsor would have held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, and this would have been the Roe v. Wade of gay marriage. Now, I’m not so sure.

Admittedly, I am somewhat conflicted on the ruling on standing. The majority concludes that the petitioners did not have standing because they were not official delegates of the state, and they did not experience any harm due to the appellate court’s ruling decreeing Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. From a  certain point of view, this is a perfectly acceptable legal holding. Scalia made a very good case in his Windsor dissent for a blanket denial of standing to all non-state petitioners in such cases. Scalia is acting fairly consistently, thus that explains why he voted with the majority here.

That said, the Chief Justice’s opinion is very worrisome, and not just from the standpoint of traditional marriage. As Justice Kennedy (!) explained in his dissent (joined in totality by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor), the petitioners here do, in effect, represent the state. In fact the state constitution all but says that when it comes to ballot initiatives, ordinary citizens are agents of the state. I would go a step further and suggest that Roberts offers up a very constrained view of who the state is. According to his logic, the “state” is nothing more than the Chief Executive and the bureaucracy. From a technical legal standpoint this is fine, but the very point of a ballot initiative is to bypass state officials whom the citizenry at large have decided are not acting in their best interests. I have written before about my concerns (to put it mildly) regarding ballot initiatives, but it is illogical to deny that the ballot initiative process changes the normal dynamics of who has legal standing.

The Chief suggests on page 8 of his opinion that once the proposition was approved and enacted, that petitioners no longer had a role in enactment. But if the executive branch of the government refuses to defend the amendment or statute, that leaves the citizens with no legal recourse.

The petitioners relied on the case of Karcher v. May to argue that they indeed had standing, but Chief Roberts denied that the the ruling there was applicable.

Far from supporting petitioners’ standing, however, Karcher is compelling precedent against it. The legislators in that case intervened in their official capacities as  Speaker and President of the legislature. No one doubts that a State has a cognizable interest “in the continued enforceability” of its laws that is harmed by a judicial decision declaring a state law unconstitutional. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131, 137 (1986). To vindicate that interest or any other, a State must be able to designate agents to represent it in federal court.

But in a case revolving around a ballot initiative, haven’t the voters themselves become, in essence, the equivalent of legislators?

Roberts’s reticence to grant standing in this case is understandable, and I can see why Scalia would join the majority. In his Windsor defense, Scalia admirably rails against the idea of an omnipotent judiciary that decrees on all constitutional issues just because it wants to. An overly broad interpretation of who has standing empowers the judiciary. But I think this is a rare case in which judicial deference actually damages the workings of the republican process. For good or ill, Californians have favored a much more directly democratic system, and the Court’s majority fails to factor that into its decision-making. By denying standing to the petitioners, the Court has said that citizens have no real redress should state executives defy their expressed wishes.

Which leads me back to my uncertainty over the rationale over the votes cast in these two cases. I’m in the odd position where I disagree with the person who I think has the cleaner motive, but agree with the person whose motives are perhaps suspect. I have no doubt that if this case had been decided on the merits, Chief Justice Roberts would have voted to uphold Prop 8, while I’m not so certain about Kennedy.  Scalia acted consistently with his overall principles, as did Alito (who would have granted standing to BLAG). Thomas offered no opinion in either case, but I suspect his reasoning would be similar to that of Alito, and so he acted consistently on the standing question as did, quite frankly, Sonia Sotomayor. As for the Court’s three other left-wingers – well, they did what they always did and just voted for the right (in their minds) outcome, reasoning be damned.

No matter the rationale for Roberts’s decision, it has ill portents. If Roberts acted strategically, then he abdicated his responsibility to be an impartial arbiter of the law. If he acted earnestly, well, he was simply wrong. More importantly, we’re stuck in a situation where the actual wishes of a democratic majority are trivial concerns compared to the desires of a handful of unelected judges. No matter how they voted today, this is simply untenable, and there is no end to this judicial tyranny in sight.


Continue reading...

5 Responses to Sorry Mr. Franklin, We Couldn’t

  • I think the style of rhetoric in Kennedy’s DOMA decision makes it pretty clear what his opinion is. Unless he puts states’ rights on the absolute highest pedestal, but it seems very weird to declare the issue illegitimate and prejudiced and limit that view to the federal govt.

  • “[T]he Court has said that citizens have no real redress should state executives defy their expressed wishes.” Except to vote them out of office; they can always do that, if they feel strongly enough.

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Herewith is the First Amendment. DOMA and Proposition 8 are peaceable assembly. Same sex so-called marriage is not equl Justice because the fraud involved in male brides is mob mentality. Proposition 8 judged by Vaughn Walker, a closet practicing homosexual with a vested interest, without the decency to recuse himself is a fraud. Government perpetuated fraud is tyranny.

    God is Justice. Atheism has no standing in a court of law.

  • Pingback: Attack on Marriage: Thursday Special - BigPulpit.com
  • Pingback: Do We Need to Use “Holy Matrimony” Exclusively? - BigPulpit.com