Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged same-sex marriage

Gay Marriage:

Activist Judge Logic Versus Monsignor Logic

.

Gay Marriage in the United States

Slide2

GOVERNMENT BY … THE PEOPLE?… BY EXECUTIVE ORDER?… BY PROGRESSIVE PROCLAMATION?

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.

On June 6, 2014,  Federal Judge Barbara Crabb single-handedly annulled the will of the people.  She ruled  that Wisconsin’s  ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.

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

Judge Crabb was appointed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and “unexpectedly” took on Senior Status  in 2009 with President Obama’s approval.  Her stated intent for switching to Senior Status was to continue her work for the court while opening up a position for another federal judge.Slide1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Information sources Judgepedia and Wikipedia reveal that the  transition was a surprising one:
…………………….
BEFORE the switch: Judge Crabb made no noteworthy judicial rulings during her 30 year tenure as Federal Judge from 1979 to 2009.  Not one ruling was important enough to be noted by Judgepedia or Wikipedia.
ooo
AFTER the switch: She has made four extremely controversial, progressive, headline-making rulings in four years:

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?

Slide2

Tipping the Scales

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?

oooo
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?

ooo
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.

Queen of Hearts

THE QUEEN OF HEARTS
from Alice in Wonderland

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.

Judge Crabb’s behavior since 2009 is reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the ultimate parody of impulsive and irresponsible authority.

article-2084800-0F678EA500000578-382_634x519

Obama’s 2009 Alice in Wonderland Party

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

Judge Crabb outlined the logic behind her reversal of the gay marriage ban:

  • 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 precise text of Judge Crabb’s justification:

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged.  It is not even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of maintaining a committed and loving relationship or raising a family together.  Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

.
The Fault in the Judge’s Logic

Slide1Judge Crabb’s logic is faulty.
.
Her first point above argues that the right of homosexuals to enter a marriage contract is not related to their ability to fulfill that contract.
.
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).

Monsignor LogicmsgrHolmes photo

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
    and
  • 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:

Slide1Dear Friends in Christ:
I feel compelled today to return to the topic of marriage, and the recent decision of Judge Crabb that Wisconsin lacks a “legitimate reason” to restrict marriage to persons of opposite sex.
.
I could say much about that in theological terms, citing the plan of the Creator. Those are important points to make, but here I want to restrict my argument to one based on reason – the kind of argument that a civil court can and ought to recognize.
.
What “legitimate reason” could the State have for defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship? There is an important prior question: Why does the State take an interest in marriage at all? Marriage confers recognition and certain benefits on adult persons who choose to enter a permanent and exclusive intimate relationship with each other. Why should the State take an interest in that?
.
On what basis should the State of Wisconsin prefer stable, long-term sexual relationships over multiple episodic sexual encounters? Why should the State “legislate morality” in this way? Doesn’t the State recognition of marriage deny “equal protection” (as to taxation, for example) to the sexually promiscuous? In the contemporary climate, it could plausibly be argued that all laws about marriage are unconstitutional for discriminating against those who are averse to commitment . . . unless the State has a “legitimate interest” in preferring stable sexual relationships.
.
Does the State have any rational basis for that preference? Sure it does: the fact that the sexual relationship between a man and woman can produce children. The State has an objective, non-sectarian interest in promoting a new generation of healthy and virtuous citizens, as well as an interest in having children supported as to their basic needs (food, shelter) by those who are rightly responsible for them. For this reason, the State has a legitimate reason for encouraging heterosexual couples to remain in a permanent union, and it rightly recognizes and privileges marriage, which is that relationship.
.
For the same reason, the State formerly had laws to protect the stability of marriage. There were laws against adultery. And in a case of marital infidelity, only the innocent party could obtain a divorce. A couple of generations ago, our demand for sexual license led the State to abdicate any responsibility to protect the stability of marriage, and now we have “no-fault divorce,” unfailingly granted at the request of either party with no justification required. I think a very good case can be made that the State’s refusal to protect the stability of marriage has been very detrimental to the culture. And if the State forgets even what marriage is, it will be far worse.
Msgr. Kevin D. Holmes

So There We Have It-
Monsignor Logic Versus Activist Judge Logic.

Sorry, Judge Crabb- Monsignor Wins!

 

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

 

Homosexuality is a hot topic that was bound to make it onto this cultural values blog at some point.
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality (which I support) is not popular in Madison, where I live. Madison is a very liberal– no, radical place. Home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and numerous other radical groups.

I have delayed discussing homosexuality on my blog in the past.  Primarily because I would rather focus on the “wooden beam in my own eye” before pointing out “the splinter in my brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3   In other words, I am in no rush to discuss the sins of others.  I am also no expert on this subject.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:3  

 However, recent events in the news have brought the subject of homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion again, and perhaps it is time for me to weigh in with some thoughts.  I will defer to experts on the subject and provide some useful references below for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans.

Recent events:

Vice President Biden announced five days ago that he was ‘absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage, thus putting President Obama on the spot regarding Obama’s position on homosexuality.

Obama "evolving"

Most recently, President Obama had said that his position on homosexual marriage , although he was opposed a few years ago, is “evolving.”  So now President Obama was placed on the hot seat regarding this issue.
Three days ago, North Carolina approved and amendment banning gay marriage, and banning same-sex civil unions as well.

Yesterday, President Obama announced his personal support of gay marriage, after statements in the past opposing gay marriage.  He attributed this change to his “evolving stance” on gay marriage.

The other two Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul), mirroring the values of the majority of Americans, still stick to the traditional definition of marriage as one man- one woman.  And no, the Republican primary is not yet over!  (Updated post coming soon.)

.

.

.

.

Where Does America Stand on Gay Marriage?

Some data indicates majority support of gay marriage

.

Gallup results indicate that half of Americans support legal gay marriage.
The results seem to be hovering right around 50/50, within the margin of error, within the last two years.

CNN polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage (50% support, 48% oppose).

.

Some data indicates majority opposition to gay marriage

North Carolina’s passage of a state constitutional amendment legally preventing gay matrimony yesterday makes North Carolina the 30th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage.  30 States out of 50 is 60%.  This implies that 60% of America opposes gay marriage. continue reading…

All Posts