Activist Judge Logic Versus Monsignor Logic
Gay Marriage in the United States
The Obama administration has been promoting the gay agenda for some time now, including the 2011 White House announcement of it’s intention not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA is a federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under laws of other states.
By refusing to defend DOMA, the White House fails to defend and enforce the law of the United States, taking upon itself the authority to override laws which have been passed by Congress, to override laws which represent the people of the United States.
In fact, lawsuits are in progress against President Obama over his abuse of executive authority, particularly abuse of executive orders.
Gay Marriage in Wisconsin
Similar things are happening in Wisconsin.
In November of 2006, 59% of the voters in Wisconsin approved an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage or any substantially similar legal status. The people of Wisconsin had spoken, and gay marriage was banned in Wisconsin.
Aside: To complicate things, her ruling did not remove the ban; it simply declared the ban unconstitutional. When hopeful county clerks in Madison began issuing marriage licenses to hopeful same-sex couples, Judge Crabb had to restate the fact that she had not issued an injunction allowing marriage licenses to be issued. Gay marriage was still “on hold” in Wisconsin.
Background on this Judge
- 2009 – Judge Crabb ruled that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s code of judicial conduct, which restricts political activism by judges, was unconstitutional. Translation: Judges no longer have to behave impartially; they are now free to donate to political campaigns and to support political candidates.
- 2010 – Judge Crabb ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. (This decision was reversed unanimously by a federal appellate court in 2011 due to lack of standing.)
- 2013 – Judge Crabb ruled that the housing tax exemption for pastors is unconstitutional, again ruling in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s law suit. .
- 2014 – And now, Judge Crabb just ruled in favor of several same-sex couples, ruling that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.
Judge’s Unexpected Maneuver
Judge Crabb’s surprising transition to controversial and obviously “progressive” rulings invites speculation.
Do Judge Crabb’s recent progressive rulings reflect an impartial legal judgement?
Her rulings seem to reflect instead a prejudice that has little to do with logic or the law.
Is Judge Crabb’s prejudice philosophical? Religious? Personal?
Could the Judge have been conscripted by a progressive organization such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in whose favor she has ruled more than once, and which represents only 1 per thousand atheists and one per 30,000 Americans?
Could it be that the Obama Administration recruited her to help with its progressive agenda, including President Obama’s efforts to promote the gay agenda?
What’s in it for Judge Crabb?
Why would a Judge suddenly make time for progressive controversial rulings?
Is anybody paying her, or rewarding her by some alternate means?
Regardless of her motivation, Judge Crabb started her progressive campaign with the most controversial ruling– eliminating for the first time the requirement that Judges behave impartially.
This set the stage for the chaotic rulings that followed.
What Is A Judge If Not Impartial?
A judge is a person who has the power to make decisions on cases brought before a court of law.
It is assumed that a judge rules fairly, impartially, and consistently with the rule of law.
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s code of judicial conduct spelled that out.
But Judge Crabb took it upon herself to reverse this requirement of a judge to be impartial.
Such a decree, eliminating the requirement of impartiality for Judges, invalidates the purpose of the entire court system, and plunges society into a free-for-all-power-grab in which anyone who can bribe one judge wins.
The idea that one Judge could single-handedly make such a fundamental change in the functioning of American government is most disturbing.
The suggestion that a Judge who supports Planned Parenthood and Pro-Abortion political candidates publicly and financially could make impartial decisions on abortion as Judge is naive and unprofessional.
People who cannot limit their personal political activity in deference to the position of public trust that they hold as Judges are, by definition, not sufficiently impartial to hold the position of a Judge.
More Prejudiced Judgements (Progressive Proclamations)
Having set the stage with her first decision, having declared her right to rule without impartiality by Progressive Proclamation, Judge Crabb then went to town with subsequent prejudiced progressive proclamations, culminating now with her attempt to reverse Wisconsin’s same sex marriage ban.
Ironically, President Obama held a lavish Alice in Wonderland-themed Halloween Party at the White House in 2009, in the midst of a national recession, a party he kept secret for over two years, knowing that it would be bad PR.
Little did the nation know that the upside-down world of Alice in Wonderland, in which logic and even the laws of gravity are often reversed, would soon be the norm coming out of the White House and it’s progressive appointees. (See also Embarrassing Women.)
The Judge’s Logic
- The Judge first emphasized that the right of homosexuals to enter into a marriage contract is not related to religious teaching, to the morality of such unions, or to the ability of gay partners to maintain a marriage relationship or to raise children.
- Then the Judge stated that the right of homosexuals to marry is related to liberty and equality, two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.
The Fault in the Judge’s Logic
Yet ALL legal contracts are not only related to the person’s ability to fulfill the contract, but are dependent upon the person’s ability to fulfill the contract:
- Underage people cannot drive.
- People with poor eyesight cannot be airplane pilots.
- People without necessary qualifications cannot teach, cannot design bridges, practice at hospitals, or become police officers.
The Judge’s second point, that the right to marry is related to liberty and equality also fails the logic test.
ALL citizens in the United States are allowed to marry, to marry a person of the opposite sex, in the manner that marriage has been defined by, globally by all cultures for millennia.
The question here is whether a court has the right to redefine marriage, and what the legal consequences of such a redefinition could be.
Judge Crabb seems to have missed this fact, as she does not discuss the right of the court to redefine marriage, nor the legal implications of such a redefinition in her ruling.
Aside: the legal ramifications of the redefinition of marriage would, in fact, redefine our entire society- see Bishop Morlino in Redefining Marriage Has Domino Effect on Family , Matt Barber in Marriage Equality = Marriage Extinction, and What’s Wrong With Gay Marriage (my previous blog post).
It did not surprise me when I found a much better, more logical analysis of the legality of gay marriage in my Catholic Parish’s Sunday bulletin. The article was not written by a lawyer, nor by a judge, but by a Catholic priest, a Monsignor.
The answer came from my favorite Monsignor, the Pastor and Rector of my parish, Madison’s Cathedral Parish- Monsignor Kevin Holmes.
Monsignor Holmes was born in Janesville, WI, holds graduate degrees in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and studied for the priesthood a the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.
Monsignor Holmes addressed the two most pertinent questions:
- Why Does the State Involve Itself with Regulating Marriage
- Why Don’t Gays Have the Necessary Qualifications for Marriage?
Here is Monsignor Holmes’ very logical analysis of why there are legitimate reasons to restrict marriage to persons of opposite sex:
(from the Cathedral Parish Sunday bulletin, June 15, 2014)
From The Monsignor:
So There We Have It-
Monsignor Logic Versus Activist Judge Logic.
Sorry, Judge Crabb- Monsignor Wins!