Louisiana Supremes: "Marriage" ruling "complete insult"

 

Justices on the Supreme Court of Louisiana have ripped into the U.S. Supreme Court for the “complete insult” of creating “same-sex marriage.”

In its dismissal of a state marriage case because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the Louisiana judges pointedly emphasized “that the freedom of religious organizations to perform marriage ceremonies according to the dictates of their faith is not implicated herein.”

One judge, Jefferson Hughes, even dissented from the decision to let the state issue drop because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision.

“Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement. I cannot do so now, and respectfully dissent. Marriage is not only for the parties. Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. It is the epitome of civilization. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms,” he wrote.

He said the Louisiana case involves adoption, and he was troubled by the prospect of “adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex.”

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

“Does the 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court automatically legalize this type of adoption? While the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy leaves it to the various courts and agencies to hash out these issues, I do not concede the reinterpretation of every statute premised upon traditional marriage,” he warned.

Others agreed to allow the case to drop but were displeased by being forced into the decision.

“Our U.S. Constitution envisions change through democracy and reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the federal government. … Unilaterally, these five lawyers took for themselves a question the Constitution expressly leaves to the people and about which the people have been in open debate – the true democratic process,” wrote Louisiana Justice Jeannette Knoll.

“This is not a constitutionally mandated decision, but a super-legislative imposition of the majority’s will over the solemn expression of the people evidenced in their state constitutional definitions of marriage.”

Louisiana was among dozens of states in which voters adopted one-man-one-woman definitions of marriage. In many of those states, a single federal judge overturned the votes.

Knoll continued, “I write … to express my views concerning the horrific impact these five lawyers have made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law therefrom.

“The five unelected judges’ declaration that the right to marry whomever one chooses is a fundamental right is a mockery of those rights explicitly enumerated in our Bill of Rights,” Knoll wrote. “Simply stated, it is a legal fiction imposed upon the entirely of this nation because these five people think it should be.”

Knoll said it is “a sad day in American when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people.”

“Rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty ,”

Justice John Weimer noted that 77.78 percent of voters amended the Louisiana Constitution in 2004 define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

But he pointed to the responsibility of judges to follow the rule of law, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Kansas Republican Gov. Sam Brownback issued an executive order that prohibits state his government from discriminating against clergy or religious organizations that decline to perform same-sex marriages on moral grounds.

WND previously reported other reactions to the Supreme Court’s creation of rights to same-sex marriage.

Lawsuits have been filed and clerks responsible for marriage licenses have resigned rather than violate their faith.

In Colorado, there’s a plan to formally define all same-sex marriages as civil unions.

Also, judges have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, and one U.S. senator said the decision should be ignored, comparing it to the Dred Scott ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court formally declared blacks were inferior to whites.

And, notably, Christian leaders representing tens of millions of constituents have told the Supreme Court they will not abide by the decision.

WND reported it was Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a candidate for the GOP nomination for president, who told NPR that there are many across America who can just ignore the Supreme Court ruling.

He said the case was brought by parties from four states, but that “does not mean that those who are not parties to a case are bound by a judicial order.”

Cruz said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court justices decided to rewrite the Constitution instead of doing their job, which is to interpret the law.

“It is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them,” he said.

Another Republican presidential candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said, if elected, he would sign executive orders to protect businesses, churches and others from the “discrimination, intimidation, or civil or criminal penalties” expected for exercising their religious beliefs.

“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”

 

WND » Faith
Louisiana Supremes: "Marriage" ruling "complete insult"

Deadly "mistake" found in court"s euthanasia ruling

An error has been uncovered in an international tribunal’s ruling that would allow officials in France to euthanize a man seriously injured in a 2008 road accident, according to one of the human rights organizations that argued on behalf of the man.

“This is an obvious and appalling error that is hard to explain. How can the highest European Court, in such a sensitive matter, ignore its own case law, while introducing a significant error at the heart of its argument?” questioned a statement from the The European Center for Law and Justice.

WND reported recently on the case, in which the European Court of Human Rights approved a policy of imposing euthanasia on patients who cannot agree.

It came in a ruling in the case of Vincent Lambert of France.

His parents, sister and half-brother petitioned the court to protect him after he “sustained serious head injuries in a road-traffic accident on 29 September 2008, which left him tetraplegic and in a state of complete dependency.”

He’s been treated in several hospitals, but physiotherapy sessions yielded no results, and doctors determined he was in a “chronic vegetative state,” described as “minimally conscious plus.”

The court found that not only can a bureaucracy decide on euthanasia, the victim’s parents lack the right to intervene.

That decision, according to spokesman Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJ, cited a previous case the human rights body had decided, Glass v. the United Kingdom, in asserting the legitimacy of plans to euthanize the accident victim.

In that case, which was similar to the Lambert case, “the mother of a child hospitalized for respiratory disorders complained about the decision of the medical team to administer to her minor son, against her will, a high dose of morphine that may cause his death,” the ECLJ reported.

“The doctors elected to not resuscitate him in the event of a respiratory crisis. Wishing to defend the life of her son against a medical decision, the patient’s mother brought her case to the ECHR, as in the Lambert case.”

In that case, the same ECHR found, “the decision of the authorities to override the second applicant’s objection to the proposed treatment in the absence of authorization by a court resulted in a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.”

The ruling found “that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.”

So, the ECLJ said, “Doctors should either respect the will of the mother or obtain an injunction against her decision. ”

But the Lambert decision that quoted the earlier precedent said, erroneously, “there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.”

Puppinck noted there is no appeal available from the ECHR’s Grand Chamber. But he said it’s likely there will be some maneuver implemented to get around it.

“One cannot imagine that this error will stay; it shall be removed. Thus, the Lambert case is not closed at the ECHR,” he said.

“To limit the consequences of this error, some will argue that only the final decision of the court matters (i.e. the operative words) and that an error of reasoning does not affect the final decision. The court would have to admit openly – and it is true, that its decision is not strictly deduced from the legal reasoning. Indeed, in fact the court, after having decided on the merits, built its reasoning in order to explain the decision and to develop its doctrinal corpus. This teleological method may have provided the opportunity for error to arise.

“Others will say that to err is human. This is true; but the life of a man is at stake here,” the ECLJ said.

The Lambert case has created a controversy of its own, with judges who dissented in the 12-5 decision writing, “In 2010, to mark its 50th anniversary, the court accepted the title of ‘The Conscience of Europe’ when publishing a book with that very title. Assuming, for the same of argument, that an institution, as opposed to the individuals who make up that institution, can have a conscience, such a conscience must not only be well informed but must also be underpinned by high moral or ethical values. These values should always be the guiding light, irrespective of all of the legal chaff that may be tossed about in the course of analyzing a case.

“It is not sufficient to acknowledge, as is done in paragraph 181 of the judgment, that a case ‘concerns complex medical, legal and ethical matters’; it is of the very essence of a conscience … that ethical matters should be allowed to shape and guide the legal reasoning to its proper final destination. That is what conscience is all about. We regret that the court has, with this judgment, forfeited the above-mentioned title.”

The dissenting judges Lambert is not dead and can breathe on his own and digest food.

“In other words, Vincent Lambert is alive, and being cared for. What, we therefore ask, can justify a state in allowing a doctor … in this not so much to ‘pull the plug’ (Lambert is not on any life-support machine) as to withdraw or discontinue feeding and hydration so as to, in effect, starve Vincent Lambert to death?”

WND reported that the decision recalled the decision a decade ago that ordered doctors to stop providing food and water to Terri Schiavo.

WND reported extensively on the Schiavo case, including on the 10th anniversary of her death.

A care facility stopped giving her food or water in 2005 on court instructions, and less than two weeks later, she was dead.

“If you go back and look at her records, she was starting to form words,” her brother, Bobby Schindler, told WND on that occasion. “It was really encouraging to our family, and to Michael (Terri’s husband) right at first.”

Terri had collapsed in her Florida home for an unknown reason and was taken to a hospital by first responders who feared she was dead. She was comatose for a time, then started responding and was moved to a care center. Her family members say she was getting better.

Then there was a deterioration in Terri’s condition. Bobby Schindler alleges it was after Michael Schiavo, her husband, started dating that he cut off Terri’s therapy and then eventually petitioned the court to withdraw treatment, which included food and water.

“If you look at the timeline, and you see Michael’s actions, you can see that this was all calculated,” Schindler alleged.

The case brought to headlines and kitchen tables across America the plight of those who are seriously brain injured, their rights and whether or not they are cognizant of their surroundings. The case generated four requests to the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, and all were rejected.

Jeb Bush, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, was governor of Florida at the time and filed several documents on behalf of Terri. But eventually, according to his press secretary at the time, he concluded the outcome was “in the court’s hands.”

Bush wrote a letter to the probate judge who ordered Terri’s feeding tube be removed and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in an unsuccessful motion to bring the case under federal jurisdiction.

Get the book that powerfully and comprehensively tells “Terri’s Story,” or “Fighting for Dear Life,” both available at the WND Superstore.

WND » World
Deadly "mistake" found in court"s euthanasia ruling

Schlafly: Marriage ruling "not the end, it"s the beginning"

Justice Ruth Ginsburg, one of five lawyers who created same-sex ‘marriage’ across the United States

Phyllis Schafly, the conservative leader who is credited with defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, is warning anyone who thinks the Supreme Court has settled the issue of “gay marriage” that “it’s not the end, it’s the beginning.”

The author of “Who Killed the American Family” told WND the decision Friday is “a shocking attempt by the Supreme Court to establish judicial supremacy in violation of everything the American Constitution has stood for.”

“We have a government of three separate powers and they have their duties, rights and obligations, but nobody assigned to the judicial branch in the Constitution has the right to overturn the law that we’ve had for millennia,” she said. “It’s just not the kind of country that we live in.”

Her comments came Friday after the Supreme Court, 5-4, ordered the creation of same-sex marriage across the nation. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reasoning included citations to Confucius and Cicero, and his opinion was blasted by four separate dissents that found the Constitution has no reference to marriage and doesn’t support the majority opinion.

The majority included two justices, Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, who publicly had advocated for same-sex marriage even while the case was under consideration but refused to recuse themselves.

Schlafly believes the decision will create a new political movement and more legal challenges. She drew a comparison to the issue of abortion, which is “settled law” but remains a hot political issue generating opposition from millions of Americans.

“A lot of people thought when the Supreme Court handed down its bad decision in Roe v Wade, well the Supreme Court has spoken and that’s it. That settles it. Well, it didn’t settle it. It was just the beginning of a big fight. And eventually that decision’s going to be overturned. But, meanwhile, we’ve cut big holes in it because the American people did not accept the ‘rule of law’ that one human being could belong to another human being.

“The same thing will happen here. I don’t agree that Americans should submit to unilateral rule by what Lincoln called ‘that imperial tribunal.’ That’s not the kind of government we have. If we’re going to change any laws they should go through the legislative process. The idea that basically one judge should basically remake the law, a law that has been law since long before our Constitution was adopted, is just not acceptable.”

She said the idea that “one judge on the Supreme Court can just undo the whole marriage law is just not the American way.”

Paul Kengor, a historian, professor and author of “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” also believes there will be future legal battles.

However, Kengor warns some of those battles will have the church, or other Christian institutions, on the defensive, because there will be more attacks by the state on the religious freedom of Christians.

“With this decision, the religious persecution will now begin full throttle. These five justices have arrogated and rendered unto themselves what heretofore was the province of the laws of nature and nature’s God – the right to define what is marriage. They have made it no less than a constitutional right. Amazingly, they’ve done so even after several years of watching what leftists – in the name of ‘tolerance’ – will do to those who dare to disagree with them on redefining marriage.”

Kengor believes the marriage decision simply expands the battlefield by providing new ways for social conservatives and Christian institutions to be targeted.

“This stunning new constitutional invention of ‘gay marriage’ will be an extraordinary and extremely damaging wrecking ball for the secular left to attack religious people who disagree with them. A long period of official persecution against religious people has just been launched,” he said.

“I warned people: Do not trust the left with ‘gay marriage.’ Don’t do it. Such warnings have been ignored, including by a Supreme Court majority. This is going to get really ugly. Really, really ugly. Mark the date June 26, 2015, on your calendar.’”

Kengor says modern America has now been firmly uprooted from its religious and cultural foundations.

“This single act, or ‘thunderbolt’ as our ‘gay-marriage’ president gleefully called it, constitutes a firm separation from our nation’s Judeo-Christian underpinnings and understanding of marriage and family. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a fundamental transformation. A genuine revolution and true fundamental transformation began on this day.”

Michael Brown, an expert who holds a Ph.D. from New York University and has researched and written a number of books on homosexuality, including “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” called Friday’s decision “the worst case scenario playing out.”

Brown blasted the legal rationale behind the court’s ruling.

“As for the ruling itself, it is absolutely ridiculous, both from a legal and moral point of view, as the dissenting justices pointed out so well,” he said.

Brown also agreed with Kengor about the long-term effects of the decision.

“People now understand why we have been shouting from the rooftops for years that gay activism was the principle threat to our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience,” he said.

However, Brown also offered hope to social conservatives.

“Because it is so extreme, the ruling will only help to galvanize the pro-marriage side, just as Roe v. Wade, as tragic a ruling as it was, helped galvanize the pro-life movement, which is stronger today than it was 45 years ago. In writing my upcoming book ‘Outlasting the Gay Revolution,’ I presupposed that the court would rule in this way, already laying the groundwork of how we must respond: We refuse to compromise our convictions, and we refuse to redefine marriage.”

Brown urged Christians to remain optimistic.

“Unless the Lord comes first, today’s social madness will also pass.”

Kengor says the roots of the decision can be found in something far deeper than simply legal innovations.

“Gay marriage is a completely new move, but, in a sense, it’s also a very old one that harkens back to humanity’s oldest roots: Ye shall be as gods. Americans are now their own determinants of truth, of right and wrong, of moral absolutes and even of what things mean.

“On January 22, 1973, the court allowed Americans to determine what they consider a human life. Now, on June 26, 2015, the court allowed Americans to determine what they consider marriage and family. This truly is a new day for America, no question.”

 

WND » Faith
Schlafly: Marriage ruling "not the end, it"s the beginning"