"Who does he think he is, anyway? Thirty-one states have put the issue of same-sex marriage to a vote in recent years, and every single one of them has rejected it. Now, here comes another activist judge blatantly disregarding the will of the majority and holding that 'We the People' can't do what we want. It's an outrage, I tell you, an outrage."
This more or less captures the tone of much of the criticism of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, holding California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. This criticism is based on a deep misunderstanding of what "We the People" means. The United States Constitution is premised on the notion of majority rule, but with a very important caveat.
The framers of our Constitution fully recognized the dangers as well as the strengths of majority rule. They understood that the majority will sometimes act in ways that are not truly public-regarding, but are instead a reflection of prejudice, intolerance, ignorance, panic and crude self-interest. A profound puzzle the framers encountered was how to deal with this danger.
The idea of a Bill of Rights that would forbid the government (the majority) from depriving individuals of certain fundamental liberties without good cause had appeal, but as James Madison acknowledged, these "parchment barriers" could not meaningfully restrain the majority from doing what it wants, if the majority has the final word on what those liberties mean.
It was here that reliance on judges to give meaning and vitality to our constitutional rights entered the picture. Because judges have life tenure, and are therefore substantially insulated from the whims and demands of the majority, and because judges are trained to take the long view and to bring a more dispassionate perspective to the often vexing task of interpreting and enforcing our liberties, the framers hoped they could act as an effective restraint on majority will in the realm of our most fundamental freedoms.
Read complete report:
Most disturbing results of election 2010
by Ruth Marcus,
November 4, 2010 - The Washington Post
In one of Tuesday's most disturbing election results, the losing candidates didn't even have opponents.
Three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court lost what is ordinarily a pro forma election to retain their seats. Not coincidentally, these justices were part of last year's unanimous ruling to strike down a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Outside groups opposed to same-sex marriage, including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into television ads and other efforts to deny them a new term.
"Activist judges on Iowa's Supreme Court have become political, ignoring the will of voters and imposing same-sex marriage on Iowa," said one commercial. "Liberal, out-of-control judges ignoring our traditional values and legislating from the bench.... Send them a message. Vote no on retention of Supreme Court justices."
Well, message sent -- and that is the problem. The Iowa vote is part of a larger phenomenon of the increasing politicization of judicial elections: more money, more attack ads, more intervention by outside groups, from trial lawyers to business interests.
This is an unavoidable result of states' decisions to give voters a say in judicial selection, whether through direct election of judges or retention votes. In 22 states, judges on the highest state court are chosen through elections and then either stand for re-election or face retention votes. In another 16 states, high court judges are chosen in some other way, but voters weigh in on keeping them. Some of the most prominent champions of judicial independence, including retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, have pointed to this approach -- merit selection coupled with retention election -- as a model for insulating the judiciary for undue political influence.
Read complete report:
GAY MARRIAGE “Oust Iowa Justices” “We The People” “Sandra Day O’Connor” UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – Kids Are Being Hurt!!!
O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts
by Nina Totenberg,
March 10, 2006 – National Public Radio
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.
NINA TOTENBERG reporting:
In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O'Connor said that attacks on the Judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our Constitutional freedom. O'Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents, or the Congress, or governors, as she put it, really, really angry.
But, she continued, if we don't make them mad some of the time, we probably aren't doing our jobs as judges. And our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation's founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent Judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O'Connor, as the founding fathers knew, statutes and constitutions don't protect judicial independence, people do…
…Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the Judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
Read/listen complete report:
Gay-Marriage Critics Try To Oust Iowa Justices
by JOYCE RUSSELL,
October 19, 2010
Iowa Public Radio - NPR
A heated campaign is under way in Iowa, where conservatives hope to unseat three of the state's Supreme Court justices following a ruling last year that cleared the way for same-sex marriage.
Judges in Iowa are appointed, not elected. And the periodic "yes or no" ballot questions on whether to keep them on the bench are usually low-key affairs. But in several states, anger over recent court decisions is turning the normally sleepy judicial elections — known as retention votes — into pitched battles.
In a cavernous exhibit hall at the State Fairgrounds, the Iowa Christian Alliance is holding its annual convention to rally religious conservatives. Activist Barb Heki is handing out yard signs that read "Vote no to activist judges."
"We greatly underestimated the demand. People have taken stacks of them," Heki says.
Conservatives like Heki who oppose the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage are furiously organizing voters to check "no" on their ballots when they're asked if three of the justices should keep their jobs. It's like any other modern political campaign. But what's new is that the targets are appointed judges who routinely stay on the bench without the indignities of politicking…
Justices Go Low Key
In Iowa, the justices are taking the high road, declining to form campaign committees or raise money to urge a yes vote. One of the targeted justices, David Baker, says they want to avoid any suggestion that future rulings could be affected by campaign donations.
"We fully understand this course of action may not be the smartest move politically," Baker says.
So instead of a well-funded "vote yes" campaign, justices and their allies are lecturing on the value of a nonpolitical judiciary.
"Before you vote in the retention elections this year, reflect on the rule of law and the need for impartial justice for all, free of politics and free of special interests," another target, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, recently told college students in Dubuque.
Read/listen to complete report:
[Unsubstantiated] --- RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that gay and lesbian relationships are SINFUL or INFERIOR to heterosexual relationships
HARM gays and lesbians.
Judge Vaughn Walker Ruling
California Prop 8. August 4, 2010
On Prop 8, it's the evidence, stupid
By Lisa Bloom
and related links:
Prop. 8 and similar measures create bias and isolation, attorney tells court
By Maura Dolan,
October 21, 2010
Los Angeles Time
Theodore B. Olson, one of the lawyers opposing the anti-gay marriage initiative, warns of 'very, very tragic' consequences.
The suicide of a Rutgers University freshman last month and a later attack in the Bronx on two teenagers suspected of being gay stemmed from discrimination and isolation that measures like Proposition 8 perpetuate, opponents of the measure told an appeals court.
"Incidents such as these are all too familiar to our society," wrote Theodore B. Olson, one of the lawyers for two gay couples challenging the 2008 California anti-gay marriage initiative.
"And it is too plain for argument that discrimination written into our constitutional charters inexorably leads to shame, humiliation, ostracism, fear, and hostility. The consequences are all too often very, very tragic."
Gay civil rights changes depend on Central Route of Persuasion – Is Lasting. Social Psychology
400,000 Anti-gay marriage DVDs - $1 million Nienstedt - Minnesota October 29, 2010 - RELIGION & ETHICS PBS – video
The history of Valentine's Day
— and its patron saint — is shrouded in mystery. But we do know that February has long been a month of romance. St. Valentine's Day, as we know it today, contains vestiges of both Christian and ancient Roman tradition. So, who was Saint Valentine and how did he become associated with this ancient rite? Today, the Catholic Church recognizes at least three different saints named Valentine or Valentinus, all of whom were martyred.
One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men — his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.
Ricky Martin on Coming out and Coming Into His Own - By Nekesa Mumbi Moody AP, November 3, 2010 – ABC News
Clergy Abuse Victims Rally At Vatican - by Sylvia Poggioli, November 1, 2010 – National Public Radio NPR
- Internalized Homophobia -
“Auschwitz – Benedict XVI - Christmas 2008 -A flashback far more severe than in Brokeback Mountain”
GAY TEENAGE SUICIDE
Fr. Marty Kurylowicz
Attachment Theory Photo
Nothing in life is more precious than the intimate relationships we have with love ones. Healthy love relationships delight us give us confidence to take on challenges and support us in difficult times. Photo
Gay marriage -> Restoring
"Hope of Love"
To Children In Early Childhood -> Marriage Equality
March 23, 2010 – by Fr. Marty Kurylowicz
Marriage Equality, like Galileo, is the truth about the facts of growing up gay. Marriage Equality will not become a reality until people learn that its most vital purpose is that it restores the “hope of love” to children in early childhood – essential to their development and well-being for life. Without Marriage Equality we teach children how to hate love and how to be mean and indifferent to people as adults. With all due respect, without Marriage Equality we would teach them in much the same way as has been shown by Benedict XVI and the hierarchy, especially in their lack of care and protection of children for decades.
facing the Roman Inquisition - Read more
Biblical quotes used to Condemn Galileo
Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New International Version)
5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5 Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (New International Version)
30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (New American Standard Bible)
30 Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
Psalm 93:1 (New International Version)
1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
Psalm 93:1 (New American Standard Bible)
1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
Psalm 96:10 (New International Version)
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
Psalm 96:10 (New American Standard Bible)
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity."
Psalm 104:5 (New International Version)
5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Psalm 104:5 (New American Standard Bible)
5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of
all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”
…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Photo
Protect children and the entire world will be safe.
Important note: No disrespect meant to Pope Benedict XVI or the hierarchy, the one and only concern is the safety and well-being of children.
Kids Are Being Hurt!!!