Syte Reitz

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

Browsing Posts tagged Defense of Marriage Act

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!

 

Making sense of Syria

No comments

Syria Explained – the New Politics
or
Mixing Politics and Prayer

To Separate or Not to Separate, Church and State?

Church_StateWhile Presidents and lawmakers have no power or right to impose a specific religion or set of beliefs on our nation (try as they might, as Obama is presently doing with secularism and with socialism), individual citizens would be remiss if they failed to consult their code of ethics before voting or before supporting a particular political candidate or policy.  And that code of ethics is, in all probability, derived from their religion.

Hence, in a democratic republic composed of 80% Christians, the law will be, and the law ought to be, based on Judeo-Christian principles.  Not by decree, but democratic determination.  Also by choice of the Founders, who unquestionably founded this nation on Christian principles.

Christian Morality Undermined
no-christian-allowed

Recent attempts to undermine this foundation by those who argue separation of Church and State have been misguided.  Separation of Church and State is not defined as prohibition of public discussion of what is right and wrong, but is defined as refraining from imposing a forced set of beliefs on citizens – whether those be Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist beliefs.  Our determination not to jail a person for not sharing our Christian beliefs is not to be confused with our right to legislate ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’ by a majority vote, and to encode these values into our laws.  And when citizens do encode their Christian values into law, as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it is not for politically motivated, unelected, appointed “judges” to reverse the will of the electorate by decree.  To allow a minority to dictate the lives of the majority is foolhardy, and represents a misguided definition of tolerance.

Grass Roots Reclaim Morality

Now, as a nation,  we are suffering the results of our previous misguided “tolerance” of things we know to be wrong – of lying, of killing, of abuse of power by the elite.  And now, the people of the United States are beginning to take matters back into their own hands.  They are getting more involved, and they are participating in the democratic process with renewed vigor.  They are not afraid to demand ethical solutions to pressing problems.  Examples can be seen in recent successes of the 23402940_BG1Pro-Life movement, the Tea Party movement and in the 2 Million Biker ride taking place in Washington DC today.  Despite attempts by those in power to steer our nation in a less democratic and less Christian direction, ordinary citizens are waking up and are taking charge.

Religious Leaders Call the World to Public Prayer

This awakening and new-found activism, in addition to including political action, also includes prayer.  In the United States, 80% of people pray, and say that their prayers are answered.  So it would be logical to pray about the the things that are important.  Catholics have been participating in organized prayer efforts for religious freedom frequently during the past year. Catholics are centrally organized and thus may be more visible, but they are not alone.  Americans of all faiths have been praying and have been becoming more active in politics.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has become more outspoken, and the Pope has become more outspoken.

The USCCB has called for numerous Freedom of Religion rallies across the United States, and Catholics have gathered to pray for the restoration of religious freedom which was violated by the HHS Mandate.
Catholics in Madison, WI, started praying the rosary en masse every week on the Wisconsin State Capitol Steps in 2012.
For the first time in history, Pope Francis called for a Global Adoration effort, in which millions of Catholics participated on June 2, 2013.

Syria

Slide1Now, in the face of the Syria crisis, Pope Francis called for a Global day of Prayer and Fasting for peace on Saturday night, September 7th. He wrote a letter to Putin calling on G20 leaders to seek Syria peace talks, and tweeted against a US military strike in Syria. Millions participated in the global vigil, with 100,000 people gathering for 5 hours of vigil and prayer with Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Square.  The rosary was prayed.

.

.

So, Are We Surprised?

Within two days of the global vigil involving millions of people, we went
FROM:
Obama pushing military strikes, Syria vowing retaliation on Israel,  Iran vowing revenge and threatening

Syria Vigil at Vatican to rape and kill Obama’s daughter, US Senators saying we could be nuked if we don’t play this right, and Russia announcing that she would shield Syria from US attack,
TO:
a gaffe made by Secretary of State John Kerry (aka “Lurch”), picked up by Putin, who took advantage of Kerry’s blunder to demand that Syria surrender chemical weapons, to Assad agreeing to surrender chemical weapons, to Congress, including the Democrat-contolled Senate backing off approval of Obama’s proposed military strikes, to Obama speaking to the nation and announcing that everything is on hold.

No military action, no political plan, no battle, no delegation needed.  Most surprising, with the most unlikely players.
.
From the brink of World War III involving the U.S., Syria, Iran, Israel, and Russia, to a defused situation and Vlad (Putin), the knight in shining armor, moralizing at Americans in the New York Times.

cosmic-640The hand of God in human events is most obvious in those events which defy the laws of probability, in those events which accomplish far-reaching, perhaps even global results, where human effort seems to play little or small part in accomplishing the result, and in those events where politicians and battles play no significant role.  Nobody anticipates the result, everyone is surprised by the result, the result is truly remarkable, and no fingerprints are left behind.
That is God’s style and His trademark.
…………………………………..
-from The Missing Link- Redefining How We Approach Politics

This week’s events in Syria illustrate one clear case of God’s such involvement in human history.
When we pray and work against all odds, God helps.
And He usually does it in an unexpected way and with a great sense of humor-
Putin, the peacemaker, to the rescue, calling on the Nobel Peace Prize President Obama not to trigger World War III.

No Rose Colored Glasses3531123548_51d7ff0d2c

Make no mistake, the story is not over.
The idea of trusting Syria or Russia, and numerous other complexities and hurdles still have to be considered.
But the bottom line is that three days ago we were almost bombing Syria against the will of the people of the United States, and now Barack Obama has called for a pause.
I, for one, have certainly breathed a sigh of relief.

Thanks be to God!

 Future Plan

Quoting from  The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics, in which this new approach to politics, politics from an educated religious perspective, was outlined:

Future Directions

The answers are pretty simple, and are available to anyone.

View all of life, including American politics, from a educated religious perspective, and thus refuse to separate Church and State.

Quote from the Liturgy of the Hours, a set of daily prayers based on Holy Scripture and available to all:

If the Lord had not been on our side….
Then would the waters have engulfed us,
the torrent gone over us;
over our head would have swept
the raging waters.
……………………………………...-Psalm 123 (124)

It’s very simple: stick strictly to God’s law, pray, and wait.
So cool to watch as it works!

Related Posts:

The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics

Pope Francis Takes On Obama

Political Puzzle Pieces Falling into Place

Enjoying the Progress? Join the Prayer

Global Adoration- Say What?

 

All Posts