Skip to comments.US District Judge strikes down WI constitutionís marriage amendment. Bp. Morlino responds
Posted on 06/07/2014 2:46:26 PM PDT by NYer
Legislatures don’t make the laws in these USA anymore. Judges nobody elected have taken over. They do whatever the hell they want in this new kritarchy.
A case in point. A US District Court, Judge Barbara Crabb, struck down as unconstitutional Article XIII, Section 13 of Wisconsin’s state constitution, which reads: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” The people of Wisconsin voted in a referendum to amend the constitution with that article in November 2006.
The Attorney General of Wisconsin, J.B. Van Hollen, says that the law remains in force and will appeal. Meanwhile some county clerks are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The situation is dreadful and disappointing.
Here is the public response from His Excellency Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino, Bishop of Madison (aka The Extraordinary Ordinary). HERE
Statement from Bishop Robert C. Morlino, regarding a federal judges ruling on marriage /Article XIII, Section 13 of Wisconsins Constitution:
First, it bears repeating that, we must respect, love, and care for every individual we encounter, regardless of who they are, where they come from, or how they define themselves. This will never change. It is at the core of who we are as members of Christs Church. Christ, Himself, invites each individual to know and love Him and live a life in response to His love. His love and mercy can heal all divisions that separate us; however, we must acknowledge the divisions that exist — notably those we choose through our actions. All are invited to this love and these graces offered by Christ, through His Church. This applies to all who sincerely seek the Truth.
Marriage is, and can only ever be, a unique relationship solely between one man and one woman, regardless of the decision of a judge or any vote. This is not based on any private sectarian viewpoint, but on the natural moral law that is universally binding on all peoples, at all times, and inscribed into our human nature, as man and woman from the beginning of creation. It behooves us to safeguard the sacred ecology of all nature, especially of our human nature.
In striking down the constitutional amendment in our state which protects marriage, the court has, once again, shaken one of the most precious and essential building blocks of our civilization. There can be no question that the best formation for children is in the home of their biological mother and father, generally speaking, and we should always have a greater concern for future generations than we do for ourselves.
Marriage, between one man and one women with openness to children, is an element of the veryfirst domino of civilization. The very nature of marriage naturally generates life. When that first domino falls, everything that is good, true, and beautiful, which is rooted on the natural family, is seriously threatened. If the domino of true marriage falls, then fall all subsequent dominos. This is demonstrated, too often, in a culture that increasingly chooses death over life.
And so, I cannot find myself otherwise than deeply saddened. We trust that every avenue of just recourse will be examined and pursued by competent authorities, including the state attorney general. The Diocese of Madison will participate in the way that seems most prudent. For my own part, I will continue to speak strongly about the truth and beauty of marriage and encourage my brother priests and deacons, and all the lay faithful, to do the same.
Let our fervent prayers not be lacking in the days ahead.
Thus endeth the statement.
Yesterday was a very bad day for Wisconsin.
Sin is a fact we deal with in this vale of tears. There will always be sinners.
We, however, must defend truth and the Church’s doctrine.
Treasonous, self-serving EXEMPT Congress has shown
how to ABDICATE. They have let American security,
economy, and Law be destroyed in under 6 years.
Nullify Judge Barbara Crabb's unconstitutional and odious decision. We must assert that we are not a country ruled by man (or woman) but ruled by law, the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.
Gay marriage wasn’t allowed before the amendment, so it’s still not legal... right?
and the states refuse to fight too
Poll to freep
As soon as marriage is defined as a union between anything and any number of other things, it will simply be a legal contract much the same as any business contract. In other words, a civil contract. Marriage will not mean anything in this context.
Marriage can then be defined as biblical Holy Matrimony, to be performed within a church and apart from any civil action. The married man and woman can then do the civil paperwork for the civil stuff.
I’m puzzled. I know judges are out of control, but how can an article of a State Constitution be struck down as UNconstitutional? Isn’t it constitutional by definition?
Or is it an assertion of unbridled Federal judicial supremacy?
Read reviews for this judge. These reviews were given prior to this decision. They are very unfavorable.
They can "adopt" unwanted dogs and cats! Now THAT would be a blessing to all!
“Yesterday was a very bad day for Wisconsin.”
Wisconsin has a bad case of the Crabbs!
“and the states refuse to fight too”
There are only four possibilities:
1) A tremendous outpouring of the Holy Spirit that changes everything.
2) We simply surrender.
3) We use force.
4) 1 & 3.
They did the same thing in Utah.
Go see Section 1 of the 14th amendment. It’s from that these ignorant judges are ruling. Right now the 14th amendment is being used to allow the federal government to completely bypass the 10th amendment and do whatever it wants.
It was a poor amendment in concept, and it will continue to wreak havoc with time.
Right now, federal judges have declared that marriage has no meaning whatsoeer. There is no reason why a marriage between two people is more special than one between three, four or four-thousand, so long as all sign the contract. There is no reason why fathers cannot marry sons. There is no reason that a vengeful spouse might marry another partner to divide the wealth of one party and give some to another.
“As soon as marriage is defined as a union between anything and any number of other things, it will simply be a legal contract much the same as any business contract. In other words, a civil contract. Marriage will not mean anything in this context.”
That’s all it ever was to the state, at least in the modern era. It just didn’t come up for most until now. First time was civil divorce and remarriage, then easy and unlimited civil divorce and remarriage.
Thanks. It's a pretty twisted interpretation to say that 1) I'm a Federal Judge, 2) there are gay rights throughout the land by judicial precedent which redefine marriage, and 3) abridging them at the State level is therefore unconstitutional.
What they’re doing is saying that under 14th amendment, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Of course, as it has always been, any unwed female is free to marry any unwed male and any unwed male is free to marry any unwed female.
Federal judges have lately found it to their particular flavor that under the equal protection clause, men should be able to marry men and females with females, which is never what marriage was in the first place. Gays were perfectly free to marry, so long as they actually married someone of the opposite sex—they were protected. Judges just went wild with the definitions and didn’t seem to care about it.
Of course, what the federal judges have essentially been saying is that states no longer have the right to define marriage, anymore, because someone is not going to have equal protection under the law. You can go down an endless array of things that the feds on a whim can decide the states no longer have a right to define because somebody might “get offended.”
What the judges have done is effectively scratched out the 10th amendment and given a ton of power to the federal governmet and more specifically the federal judiciary.
The emporers in black robes holds true.