BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules California’s Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Anyone have a link to the actual opinion?

You know, I wonder if we shouldn’t just say that it is no business of the state adjudicating marriage.  If you want to marry your cactus or dog then have at it.  But the church should decide who can get a church marriage or not.  And no one or institution should be required to recognize any marriage.  The same goes for divorce.  Many churches just don’t recognize certain divorces.  People shack up without anyone’s approval.  After all, we can already take any contract or document and have it placed in the chancery court documents at the court house. I could take my parchment royal scrole announcing me as the first baron of the Kingdom of Inertia but no one would have to act on it.  Just wondering.

For those interested here is a link to the opinion:  http://howappealing.law.com/Proposition8-cta9ruling-020712.pdf

Foolish Greg - the U.S. Constitution means what the liberals say it means - no more and no less.  It protects the rights that liberals want to protect, but doesn’t protect rights that liberals don’t like.  Don’t you feel protected?

The reality is that the more liberal decisions like this, the cheaper and less credibility the courts and the U.S. Constitution have.  If the Constitution is simply whatever liberal judges want it to be, than the American constitutional structure is no longer the “rule of law” but instead tyranny.  This is another instance of liberals having the raw force to power something through, not realizing that in doing so, they are destroying the underlying institution they are using to force their views through.

Just for the record - from CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/same-sex-marriage/) comes this statistic about same-sex “marriage” from Canada, where this has been legal for several years…
“About 7,500 [same-sex couples] were married (this represents 0.1% of all married couples in Canada)”

Think about that, this whole thing is supposedly about equal rights for 0.1% of all married couples!?!?  Do you really think so???  If you do, I’ve got some wonderful ocean view property in Kansas to sell you.  No, this fight is all about the big stick that will follow from the declaration that homosexual behavior is “normal” - it’s all about liberals getting a big stick to further take over society with - to strip away religious freedoms, to take control of children away from parents and give them over to the state, etc.

And think about what this means:
“16.2% of same-sex married couples had children”
They certainly didn’t have children in the way that a husband and wife have children.  No, because that is simply not biologically possible.  It is rather more like the say that a couple have a car or have a house or have a dog or cat.  And if you sever procreation from marriage, you sever children from the central definition of marriage - i.e. children are incidental to marriage at best.  This subtly but importantly changes the definition and power of what it means to be a “family”.  It is much easier for the state to claim authority over children under this new order.

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, I think.

Greg,

Your title is incorrect.  It should be the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and not California SC.

All,

Remember that this is the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which is the most liberal and most reversed Federal Appeals Court that there is.  En Banc it will affirm its decision.  However, there is a high probability if it makes it to the current Supreme Court of the United States panel it will be reversed.

From here (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/9th_circuit_judge_reinhardt_unfazed_by_supreme_court_criticism).  Note that Reinhardt authored this ruling:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took another beating from the U.S. Supreme Court this past term, but one of its frequently reversed judges is unfazed by the criticsm.

The U.S. Supreme Court considered 26 appeals from the San Francisco-based appeals court, and reversed or vacated the decisions in 19 cases, the Los Angeles Times reports. The 79 percent reversal rate is not out of line with past records, nor is it the highest reversal rate among the circuits. The Supreme Court reversed five of six cases from the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, and four of five cases from the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit, resulting in reversal rates of 83 percent and 80 percent respectively, the newspaper says in a chart that cites SCOTUSblog statistics.

In 12 cases, the 9th Circuit reversals were unanimous. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote three of those reversed opinions. Past coverage suggested the Supreme Court intended to send a message to Reinhardt, viewed as possibly the country’s most liberal jurist.

Reinhardt told the Los Angeles Times he didn’t feel singled out because the justices often use strong words to express disagreement, even when they are disagreeing with each other.

Soon, the wise latina will have her say.

JAMESW #4-5-7 Scratch a liberal and you will find a fascist.

Maybe I’m wrong….please correct me if I am….but if same sex marriage is upheld, this doesn’t mean that churches have to permit such rites to ake place on their properties, or even to recognize such “marriages.”

Not yet, cennydd13, not yet.  I would guess that that will come in 10 years or so, once same-sex marriage is more entrenched.  The liberals won’t touch this yet, but expect that as time goes on, a homosexual couple will challenge a church’s refusal to marry them as an agent of the state.  They will argue that if the church is acting as an agent for the state, then they cannot discriminate.  Expect liberals to also try to rent church properties for same-sex marriage ceremonies and then try to argue that the religious exemption should only apply to individual clergy not choosing to marry someone, and that if churches rent their properties out for marriages, they are engaging in commercial business and that discrimination in such circumstances is not allowed.

There is no group in America more intolerant than liberals.

State-sanctioned “marriage” is for couples who are willing to give their children a mother and father. Same-sex couples do not offer that to children and therefore are not “equal”

What is state-sanctioned marriage?

It is merely a set of special property rights given spouses to encourage raising better children. State-sanctioned “marriage” (as distinct from “marriage” sanctioned by a religious authority or a private pledge between two persons) is designed to give a couple, and especially the wife, mutual property rights and financial benefits that enhance the couple’s financial stability to encourage them to invest resources in bearing and nurturing children. Its rationale does not apply to same-sex couples who are naturally, and also ethically, disqualified from parenthood.

Same-sex couples, like some single adults who rely on artificial insemination or surrogates to produce children without a spouse, ethically disqualify themselves from parenthood. They selfishly withhold from children a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT – the right to be born to a mother and a father. Artificially conceiving a child, with premeditated intent to deny the child a mother and father, is child abuse. It should be outlawed.

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
Feb. 7, 2012

cennydd13 - Also, most probably immediately, everyone - including churches - will be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” as real marriages.  Thus, suppose that Church A hires a male secretary.  The secretary later demands full spousal benefits for his “husband”.  The church would have to accept that “marriage” and provide benefits.

jamesw- Do keep in mind that all members of TEC and all churches in full communion with TEC already recognize gay marriage, by definition of the term “full communion” (mutual recognition of sacramental acts).  This is the key to the problems of Anglicanism- no discipline, and what one does impacts everyone. All dioceses of TEC are in full sacramental communion with one another, as well as with the British and Australian and NZ churches.  So, since some dioceses recognize gay marriage, they all recognize gay marriage, since a marriage in one diocese must be recognized by all dioceses in communion with it.  This is WHY the GS provinces declared impaired or broken communion with TEC, because they could not recognize gay marriages and/or gay bishops.
You can’t have it both ways, if your diocese is in communion with TEC, you pretty much have to accept the marriages performed in Pasadena and Boston.  If not, get your bishop up off his duff to say so.

jamesw- CoE, ACoC and TEC already extend spousal benefits to gay partners (married or civil partners), so it has no impact on Anglican Churches other than ACNA, which the first 3 will tell you doesn’t count- but which does not have any partnered gay clergy.

I doubt very much that we’ll have that problem in our diocese of San Joaquin.  The faux Episcopal “diocese,” however…...........

BillB,

Thanks for the catch! I’ve corrected the headline.

To put this ruling in perspective what if:

1.  The US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution required that X be allowed.
2.  The Constitution was then amended as provided in Article V that the Court was wrong and the X was not allowed.
3.  The Supreme Court then ruled that because it allowed X it was a violation for the Constitution to be later amended to disallow X and that therefor the amendment was unconstitutional and is void.
4.  Thus the Court’s original ruling was reinstated.

Yet this is precisely what the 9th Circuit ruled.  Prop 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution, as allowed under that document, to overrule a decision interpreting the state’s constitution by that state’s supreme court.  Until the California Supreme Court made its ruling same sex marriage was never a “right” allowed under that state’s constitution.  Yet a federal court has said that in this case the people of the state cannot amend its own constitution to correct that state’s Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation of that document.

The 9th Circuit also seems to find no right to homosexual marriage in the US Consitution.  So where is the real federal question, not the trumped up equal protection farce, that justifies this ruling?  Basically the federal courts are interfering in what is a state matter and imposing a result the particular federal courts like.  They simply don’t have this power in a federal system, but then one can never accuse the liberal/progressives of following the law.

A truly breathtaking ruling both as to law and logic.

So when is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals going to render the Constitution unconstitutional?  Just wondering.

I have contended on occasion that in the great contest over the prestigious title of “Worst Warren-and-After Court Decision Ever”, Romer v. Evans is a real contenda, possibly outpunching such better known decisions as Roe and Griswold.  Sure enough, it is that decision that Judge Reinhardt relied upon. (Ed Whelan points out on NRO today that the reference to Romer may be an effort to pander to Justice Kennedy,  who wandered off the reservation in Romer, and that this decision may not follow upon Romer‘s reasoning, but the point remains that Romer may be unbeatable as a generator of terrible, absurd decisions. It is particularly malevolent in that it restricts the people’s ability to correct the judicial system when the people think it has gotten something wrong.

tjmcmahon makes an interesting point in post #14.  Let’s assume the very realistic scenario of a well differentiated parish and priest in a very liberal TEC diocese.  Let’s assume that parish and priest have done everything that Sarah recommends for differentiating itself from its diocese.  Let’s assume that the diocese has liturgies for same-sex “marriages” but leaves it up to parishes to carry them out or not.  Assume then that one Sunday a homosexual couple begins to attend.  They aren’t “in your face”, they generally stay in the background, and they never challenge anyone to “recognize” their relationship.  Instead, they subtly but surely insert themselves as “members”.  Then after six months or so, they request that the priest marry them.  The priest sits them down and explains that neither he nor the parish do same-sex marriage, and explains why.
Then a week or so later, the priest and parish are hit with a lawsuit.  The couple claims that the parish is part of TEC and the local diocese and that since both TEC and the local diocese perform same-sex “marriage”, there cannot be a legitimate religious objection, but that the only rationale for refusing to do it was prejudice.
Think about it - the priest and parish will not be able to argue “church teaching” because their church/denomination overtly is pro-same-sex “marriage”.  I wouldn’t put it past liberals to then argue that private conscience is not a good enough reason not to do same-sex “marriage” - just as private conscience is not good enough reason to “discriminate” in other settings.
Just something else to think about.  You know the liberals are plotting…

TJ, I am not sure I agree. Even if TEC recognizes gay marriage, I think I am pretty safe in saying the Diocese of SC as well as the state of SC DO NOT!  Gay marriage is not legal in this state. SOOOO even if TEC allows/recognizes gay marriage, it won’t be a problem here as the state of South Carolina defines marriage in a way which makes gay marriage impossible.  Unless a priest wants to go against state law,  I doubt there will any gay marriages in this state nor will any be recognized under SC law.

SC blu cat lady - If the USSC decides that gay “marriage” is a constitutional right, then South Carolina gets it shoved down its throat whether you like it or not.  And then, the Diocese of SC will be at risk of liberal infiltrators itching for lawsuits, as per what I discuss in posts 11 and 21.  At this point, I doubt that Justice Kennedy will find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, but given the new western approach to constitutional law of “Rule by Liberal Whim”, nothing is for sure anymore.

My point about TEC is that its general convention has, over the last several years, officially redefined what the word “marriage” means within TEC, and therefore also for all churches that recognize full communion with TEC.  You will find, going forward, that there will be cases brought in church courts when a parish or diocese refuses to recognize a marriage performed in another diocese when said marriage is between 2 people of the same gender.  Under canon law, a marriage performed in a TEC church in Massachusetts MUST be recognized by a TEC church anywhere else, including South Carolina, whether said marriage is legally recognized in South Carolina or not. Hard to make a case that they are “sinners living together” when they were married by a bishop you are in full sacramental communion with, and a bishop of your own denomination to boot.  To refuse such recognition is, indeed, to abandon the communion of “this” church.  To perform a gay marriage in the first place, is, of course, to abandon the communion of THE Church.  So, in the long run, breaking with TEC may be the only way to maintain communion with the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”  I wish S Carolina and its bishop well in their efforts to differentiate, but I doubt TEC will let you stay in once you actually begin to refuse to recognize TEC clergy, marriages, etc., and I don’t see how you can adequately differentiate while maintaining such outward signs of communion.
There is, actually, similar law governing civil marriages- if you have a legal marriage in Las Vegas, it is recognized in other states, even if you did not have to go through the same legal procedure, waiting period, etc.  The problem is that once the word is defined to mean something other than a union between one man and one woman, such “marriage” performed legally in one state will become recognized in the others, even if it cannot be performed in those other states (pending Congress or the courts forcing the issue over the next few years).  Just wait for it- major lawsuits coming soon, if they haven’t already been filed.

tjmcmahon: On a related note, in Canada, there has normally been a residency requirement in order to file for divorce- i.e., people with no ties to Canada couldn’t just drop by to get a quick divorce.  Well, when Canada redefined marriage back in 2006 to include gay “marriage”, a lot of homosexuals from the US and Europe went there to get married.  And now the splits are coming, but many of these “married” couples were not recognized as being married in their home jurisdictions and so could not get divorced.  So they went to Canada, but were confronted with the residency requirement.  Anyway, there was a big kerfuffle in Parliament with the liberal opposition members calling the government “homophobic” for following the law.  I think that the government finally caved and is no longer insisting on the residency requirement and seeking it to be changed.

As to getting married in same-sex marriage jurisdictions and then trying to force recognition in a non-SSM home state, this is what the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is all about.  Remember that Obama and the Democrats want to repeal DOMA and Obama is refusing to defend it in court.  Liberal judges can’t wait to invalidate it.  Well, once it is invalidated, then, tjmcmahon is spot on - states like South Carolina will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere.  I doubt that even state constitutional amendments would prevent that.

tjmcmahon:  You wrote

My point about TEC is that its general convention has, over the last several years, officially redefined what the word “marriage” means within TEC, and therefore also for all churches that recognize full communion with TEC.

Actually, I don’t think that GC can do that.  It can change the canons, but I don’t think that it has done so yet.

Canon I.18 sec.2(b) states as a requirement of marriage

That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong.

Any purported same-sex “marriages” performed by TEC clergy are not canonically valid, and Dioceses cannot be canonically required to accept them.

But I would expect that to change quickly - perhaps this year.  I am not sure if they plan to revise the marriage canons.  But I would suspect that the Diocese of SC would refuse to accept that change, just as it has refused to accept the new disciplinary canons.

26, don’t forget they will also have to change the Prayer Book.  I expect they will simply ignore the official definition of marriage for a while.

Any purported same-sex “marriages” performed by TEC clergy are not canonically valid

Good, then +Lawrence and +Howe and a couple other bishops can bring charges against Tom Shaw and depose him.  And the clergy in Pasadena, etc.
None of the depositions or “renunciations” was canonically valid either, nor the consecration of VGR, nor, for that matter, the consecration of KJS.  Since when has canonical validity meant anything at all?  My point is not its legality, but its acceptance by TEC and ALL churches in full communion with TEC.  If you do not accept all TEC bishops as bishops, you are not in full communion, if you do not accept the validity of the disciplinary process, you are not in full communion, if you do not accept marriages, you are not in full communion.  By definition.  But, of course, if you declare you are in full communion, you must accept all those things as valid, including those accepted as valid by TEC’s disciplinary process in violation of its own canons.
The CoE has made clear that as a church, it does not recognize ACNA bishops as Anglican Communion bishops- and the reason for that is that TEC deposed them.  Did +RW leave open the door to recognizing them in the future, sure he did, the man is incapable of actually reaching a decision.  But at the same time, he reinforced that the CoE is in FULL communion with TEC, and by definition, whether TEC sacraments are valid or not (and no matter what they do with canons, they cannot make sacramentally valid those things which are not), they are accepted fully by CoE, and therefore, Tom Shaw, VGR, KJS, Bennison, etc, no matter their sacrilege or canon violations, are bishops of the Anglican Communion, in full communion with the CoE, and +Bob Duncan, +Keith Ackerman and +Jack Iker are not (that is, in full communion with the ABoC and CoE, although they ARE in full communion with more Anglican Provinces and Primates than TEC).

tjmcmahon - You are certainly correct that canons count for nothing in TEC, and that grossly uncanonical actions are pushed through with alarming frequency.  I think that what this speaks to is the utter lawlessness of TEC. TEC’s current leadership is there by force of power, not by inherent right of proper authority.  You are absolutely right that when the mob comes to guillotine you, appealing to the law won’t keep you alive a moment longer.

But having said that, I do think that the Diocese of South Carolina can legitimately say that, right now, same-sex “marriages” are not canonically valid in TEC, just as the purported depositions of the various ACNA bishops are also canonically invalid.  Now, sure, KJS could declare Lawrence deposed and that in her interpretation, all she need do is imagine the House of Bishops giving its consent, and so long as nobody challenged her, TEC would act as if Lawrence was deposed.

Part of the problem with the Anglican Communion at large (and within many of the western Provinces) is that there is utter lawlessness right now.  There is rule by the whims of the powers-that-be.  The credibility of the system has broken down.  Force may permit liberals to do certain things, but force cannot supply credibility and legitimacy.

There is rule by the whims of the powers-that-be.  The credibility of the system has broken down.  Force may permit liberals to do certain things, but force cannot supply credibility and legitimacy.

And (back to the thread’s subject matter) this is the danger of court decisions such as this one by the 9th Circuit.  Everybody knows that the US Constitution says NOTHING about same-sex marriage - liberals know this just as much as conservatives know this.  Liberals may have the power to force these sort of decisions through, but it is pretty clear to most people (whether they support the decision or not) that the judge is USING the Constitution to achieve a desired policy end.
I think that the Constitution and the credibility of the courts are dying a death of a thousand cuts.  Every time we see a decision like this where a liberal judge claims the Constitution says X, when everybody knows it doesn’t, the Constitution is cheapened.  The Constitution is becoming a plaything of politics rather than a document that is supposed to limit government and provide checks and balances.