Matthew Franck, Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, in Public Discourse:
..In short, Judge Reinhardt has cooked a dish intended to appeal especially to Justice Kennedy, the author of Romer. Since that decision, its six-justice majority has probably declined to just five, with the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor by Samuel Alito. Kennedy’s own vote for same-sex marriage is therefore indispensable to the success of Reinhardt’s perfectly transparent agenda.
It is worth noting that Reinhardt says as little as possible about Lawrence v.Texas in 2003, a 5–4 ruling also authored by Justice Kennedy, which held on due process grounds that a state cannot prohibit homosexual sodomy. That is no doubt because Kennedy had flatly denied in Lawrence that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage was implied by the Court’s holding in that case. “No, Justice Kennedy,” Judge Reinhardt seems to say, “don’t look over there at Lawrence, look over here at Romer!”
Perhaps Judge Reinhardt thinks Justice Kennedy is a slightly addled puppet, who can be made to dance as one wishes if only the right string is pulled. But Justice Kennedy should find all this obvious targeting of himself to be deeply offensive. For Reinhardt’s assimilation of Perry to Romer is ably rebutted by the dissent of Judge N. Randy Smith, who notes that California’s Prop 8 has a much narrower reach than did Colorado’s Amendment 2.
13 Comments
It is quite obvious that Judge Reinhardt is under the impression that Justice Kennedy is a member of the ol' boys club that has conspired together behind the green curtain to construct a pathway for the imposition of marriage corruption on a society whose only official national motto is "In God We Trust" - i.e. Providence.
Judging from the defening silence coming from the marriage corruption side of the field it is quite obvious that the loyal opposition recognizes a fourth quarter hail-marry pass when they see one - eyes to sky; mouth dropped.
Now we get to see if Kennedy has the sack to expose himself under the glaring light of truth.
I love it. Even when judges do their jobs and cite precedent, you all pretend there's an ulterior motive. There can't ALWAYS be a conspiracy.
What a surprise that the anti-gay Franck has disparaging remarks to make about Reinhardt's ruling. Next up we'll speak with the Klan on race relations.
No Newt teaches about moral, matrimonial fidelity and the one true church ... and then all US judges will be replaced by priests of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" and burning on the stack will be reintroduced in the codex. Church law trumps civic law and Rick Santorum will be papal governor of the Catholic States of America (CSA).
How sad to be drowning in hateful conspiracy theories...but that's life as a conservative I guess.
It is sickening seeing the lustfull power grab by unelected judges. We Americans would not want to live in a fascist or Communist state. But when you have judicial tryanny you essentialy have the same thing. Are we a democratic republic or not? This ruling is a direct assault on this institution.
Never before has a court ever ruled that the people cannot amend their own constituion. This one has. It is said there is no checks and balances on judges. They answer to no one and are not held accountable because they do not get elected.
The only recorse we the people have is voting and amending our constitution as a check and balance. This judicial tyrannical ruling now takes that away.
>>No Newt teaches about moral, matrimonial fidelity and the one true church ...
Hi, Apollonia. So glad you have an interest in these things. Well, I certainly agree that one should not get their theology from politicians anymore than they should get it from Hollywood or the Lada Gagas of the world.
Indeed, what Newt teaches on these issues only matters to the extent that it matches what Jesus and his Apostles taught. When we study the NT without presuppositions, we learn about the one true church for ourselves (Ephesians 4:4-6).
We also learn no one "joins" the Lord's church. Rather, it is the Lord who adds the saved to His church (Acts 2:47b). We also learn from the first sermon preached what we must do to be saved (Acts 2:37-41). [Hint: they were *not* told to say a prayer asking Jesus to come into their heart.] Peter explains why God ordained this as the point at which we are saved in 1 Peter 3:15-22. The Hebrews writer even refers to these truths as elementary teachings of the faith (Hebrews 6:1-2).
Moreover, these basic truths are reiterated and reinforced many times throughout the NT through not only the Apostles' preaching, but also via the many examples of conversion we have been given in the book of Acts. One of the best studies one will ever undertake is the book of Acts. When we read it, there is no denying what was involved in becoming a Christian nor the urgency with which they did it.
The court did not rule the people can't amend their constitution. The court did rule that the amendment can't violate the US Constitution. Get your facts straight.
The 9th circus in effect ruled that you cannot amend your constitution to over-rule a corrupt judiciary.
What corrupt judiciary? Their job is to interpret laws.
Their job is to interpret the intent of the law in a manner that is consistent with the history and traditions of their jurisdiction; as oppsed to creating new law based soley on their self perceived omnipotence.
California has never before permitted same-sex enthusiasts the right to marry same jendered partners; which, in itsel, proves that the four rouge jurists had to invent a new right based soley on personal ideology.
The court did rule that you cannot amend your own constitution because Proposition 8 did not violate the US Constitution.
@James
If that's your logic then where are the lawsuits against the State of California for banning the carrying of unloaded concealed weapons? Isn't that in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment? I think it is but I want to hear your response.