(Wall Street Journal) - A federal appeals court here ruled Tuesday that California's voter-mandated ban on gay marriages was unconstitutional, in a closely watched case that eventually could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Now comes the day I've dreaded for over a decade. It is something I've tried to warn people about for just as long. Please allow me to educate my international readers on something that even many Americans are completely unaware of....
In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California's 2008 law, popularly known as Proposition 8, had used the state's initiative power to target a minority group and take away a right the group possessed, without legitimate reason.
Doing so, wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt in an 89-page majority opinion, violated the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause.
"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," wrote Justice Reinhardt, who was appointed to the court by former President Jimmy Carter.
Tuesday's decision is likely just the second stop in a battle that could next be appealed to an expanded 11-judge panel of the same court—or directly to the Supreme Court...
read full story here
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.It's called the "full faith and credit clause" and what it basically means is that a legal contract drawn up in one state must be honoured by the other forty-nine. There is no option in this. No flexibility is given. It says what it says, and when you combine that with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it creates an incredibly powerful legal argument in favour of gay marriage. So long as one state allows it, based on Article 4, Section 1, along with Amendment 14, ALL STATES MUST ALLOW IT -- PERIOD!
Article 4, Section 1United States Constitution
Those who know and understand the constitution know this day is coming. Up until now, the United States Supreme Court has been avoiding the issue entirely by refusing to hear cases, citing technical problems, etc. The justices know what will happen. As soon as they hear the case, they will be bound by the U.S. constitution itself to rule in favour of gay marriage nationwide. They will be bound by the U.S. constitution itself to nullify all state laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It doesn't matter how 'conservative' or 'traditional' the justice is. It doesn't matter of the justice is a practising Catholic. In fact, one could argue that makes it worse, because such persons would be even more compelled to follow the rule of law outlined in the U.S. Constitution. They will be 'painted into a corner' so to speak, and they know it with certainty. The only way the Supreme Court can rule in favour of traditional marriage is to ignore the U.S. Constitution.
In the face of this impending Constitutional train wreck, states will be faced with the realisation that all of their millions of votes against gay-marriage are to be nullified by nine unelected judges. State sovereignty will once again be trampled on by the imperial federal government using the infamous 14th amendment -- a product of the Civil War. States will once again be faced with the sobering realisation that this venture into American imperialism has been a complete failure, resulting in the nullification of states rights and the overwhelming will of the people. Oh sure, some congressmen will attempt to put a band-aid over the problem by re-introducing the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would overturn a Supreme Court decision in favour of gay-marriage, but just like every time in the past, the act will go down in flames on the House or Senate floor (pun intended).
So there you have it, tomorrow's news before it happens. When it does become reality though, states will be faced with an unpleasant choice. They can either roll over and just let it happen -- like Roe v. Wade. Or they can finally do what they've needed to do for over a century -- SECEDE FROM THE UNION THROUGH STATE-WIDE REFERENDUM. The first act is an act of cowardice, and will likely be chosen by the majority of U.S. states. The second act is an act of courage, and if so much as one state chooses it, there is still hope for the American people. I'm sorry, but there is no other political solution. Either secede or roll over and take it. That is all there is. Every other attempt at finding a third way will result in failure. Mark my words.
The problem the states face is not gay-marriage. The homosexual unions are just a symptom of a much greater problem. So long as civilisation has existed, there has always been a homosexual minority engaging in their acts of perversion in the dark alleys and shadows of the night. Nothing is new under the sun. The problem is that we now have a system of government wherein the minority can reign over the majority under the banner of 'civil rights' enshrined in a Constitution that has been perverted to favour the rights of some over others. Once our federal government was given imperial powers (starting with the Civil War until the present) it would only be a matter of time before the perverse would rule over the godly with an iron fist. The problem is not gay-marriage. It's not even homosexuality. The problem is we have an imperial federal government that makes it possible for nine unelected judges to override the votes of tens of millions of people in their respective states. The only solution is to strip the federal government of this power, and since that is impossible so long as states remain in the Union, the only solution is for them to leave the Union and govern themselves as independent nations, or some loose confederacy of sovereign states with a weak central government. It looks like it's time to start thinking outside the box folks. The days of Empire America are soon coming to an end, but not before the imperial powers in Washington DC try to shove gay-marriage down our throats!
Now as for the Catholic Church, there is something she can do to protect herself in the mean time, but it will require a radical correction that few bishops will want to take. They may have no choice however. The Church could simply refuse to recognise all civil marriage contracts. Thus, every married Catholic (converts in particular) would have to receive the sacrament of matrimony in the Catholic Church. No longer would the Church be able to recognise civil marriage among Protestant converts any more. The Church would then have to lobby the state to abolish the word "marriage" from such civil unions entirely with the hope of avoiding confusion in the future. Even if successful, this would be a hallow victory for the Church, for American civilisation will be lost in the process.

9 comments; post here:
Why are surprised that a country founded on Masonic principles would come to this?
Now is the time for Catholics to openly assert the Social Kingship of Christ. No more nonsense about "Nullification!" or "States Rights."
The other day at an ABA meeting that paradigm of Catholic Traditionalism Justice Scalia stated something along the lines of "abortion is an issue that should be left up to the states to be decided" Ah yes so its not morally wrong oh no only procedurally wrong. Scalia sure is the modern incarnation of St. Thomas More.
As long as Catholics place their hope in Americanist a-holes like Ron Paul and Scalia we are doomed to failure.
The biggest problem with gay marriage is that they will want parental rights which will put kids in danger of pedophilia abuse by male couples and an overall unhealthy upbringing. Although many heterosexuals are awful parents and not suitable examples either, gay parents would be even more detrimental to a child's psych.
I do think that the Supreme Court could rule that there is no right to gay marriage in the constitution and that a state does have a right to ban something that is not explicitly protected by federal law.
Sir Knight,
A very thought provoking and somewhat disturbing article. We will be facing a similar situation this year as the Australian Greens attempt to permanently altar the Australian Marriage Act; they have nine senators, and a green plus very sympathetic members of left and right in the house of reps in both the Australian Labor party and our conservative coalition, ironically known as the Liberal Party (our head of opposition, Tony Abbot, is a largely hated figure in Australian political, media, academic and public life, and despite his Catholic credentials will not overturn the various state-based abortion laws in this nation) and will likely be steamrollered re the GM issue when it eventually surfaces.
All this to say, in the sacraments class I took back in 2010, the history of marriage and the developing roles of church & state from Apostolic times until modern times re this Divinely ordained institution was charted; there are some who believe the only move of any value will be the state's cessetion (sp) from any legislative power over marriage, leaving it up to the various religious and cultural communities to act as the moderators of this institution.
South Africa took a controvercial yet very interesting approach to this a few years ago now if I remember correctly, stepping back from legislating on mariage, instead ruling rights of property, next of kin etc for all groups living in communal arrangements (taking 'love' and 'sex' out of the law), affording identical rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples, polygamous groups, siblings living together, family groups of adults living together, members of religious communities and so forth. marriage was left to the various religious bodies to administer according to their own rites and customs. I see the instruments of the chastizement hurtling over the hill towards us... god help us and give us strength - and God fortify the Catholic Church to stand Her ground, with our separated Protestant brethren of like mind in areas of life, mariage, interpersonal and intimate relations etc, but if the courts can potentially overturn even the votes of a hundred million, this thing will take its course unto the end, for we do not live in a democracy, for a true democracy would respect Prop. 8 as it resoundingly demonstrated the will of the people!!
.
Blessings,
Sarah,
Australia.
Actually, Sir Knight, there is a way The Supreme Court can rule the overturning of Prop 8 unconstitutional...First, the Court could point out no voter fraud occurred at any point during the voting process. Next, they could then use the 10th and 1st Amendment and point out even if the state did not have the power to define marriage, then the power resided in churches, which would put an end to activist judges. Third, they could point out charges of supposed civil rights violations occurred only AFTER the measures were already on the ballot, not before, thereby clearing legal guidelines.
A pleasent thought Etienne, but what is the liklihood of any of that happening? Zip, zero, nadda, null, not a chance.
No, if you want to know what the Supreme Court will do in the future, you only need look toward its past. This is the same branch of government that gave us Dred Scott, institutionalised segregation, no prayer in schools and Roe v Wade. Let us not forget their recent rulings against property rights and sodomy as well. The Supreme Court is no different than the other two branches of government. They only rule in favour of states rights when it politically expedient to do so. Otherwise their default is to rule on the side of the federal government against states rights. That is the pattern, and it would be wise for us to see it for what it is. There is no solution to America's problem of federal tyranny. We have become an imperial superpower that does little more than export our corruption and filth around the world, bombing those that refuse to submit, and marginalising those who see the problem for what it is. A breakup of the country along cultural lines is necessary and overdue.
But there is a bright spot in all this...the court that ruled against Prop 8 is THE most overturned circuit court in America and one of the judges on the court is THE most overturned judge.
As Mark Shea would say, the Brown Shorts are on the march. You.must.approve!
Well, there are two separate but related issues. The first is whether the Fed Con prohibits a state from passing a Prop 8 type law as the 9th Circus says, which the Supreme could reverse if it wants to (not that it would) by simply ruling the Fed Con does not address ss marriage. The other issue is the full faith issue. That one is a bit more difficult for the Supremes to wiggle around (even if they wanted to). If, for example a SSM couple from Massachussettes moves to Texas, would Texas be required to give full faith to the marriage recognized in Mass? There is some precedent that the full faith would not apply if doing so would violate the public policy of the state asked to give faith and credit. A small amount of wiggle room - but if they rule Prop 8 violates the Fed Con, then there is no wiggle room at all - it will have to be recognized in all 50 states.
Have you heard about the scandal in Britain, an 'eminent donor' possibly even Elton John, gave a substantial sum of money to the Conservative Party with his report on gay marriage, which was fed into the Policy Unit, and Cameron declare- " His voice has been heard". See protectthepope.com
Post a Comment