Within minutes after the Supreme Court ruled on California's Proposition 8 last week, the state began "marrying" homosexuals.
However, some feel they are doing so illegally.
The Ninth Circuit Court apparently refused to follow the law and the order from the Supreme Court.
And the timing of one of the "marriages" is raising the question, did someone within the Court leak advance information as to what the Court's ruling was going to be?
There is an all out attempt to communicate that "the train has left the station," as they say, regarding the redefinition of marriage in California---it's over, no more can be done to protect marriage.
While the Supreme Court has overruled the will of the people, the marriage issue is far from over. Those of us who stand in defense of marriage do so, not from a philosophical or political belief, but a historical, natural and biblical belief.
An emergency application was filed with Justice Kennedy on Saturday. He responded yesterday.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an emergency application on Saturday with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, asking him to restore the rule of law in California.
Here's why ADF filed it.
When the Supreme Court takes a case, lower courts no longer keep any jurisdiction to act upon the case until the Supreme Court acts first.
As you know, the Supreme Court ruled last week. The Ninth Circuit Court on Friday issued an order lifting the stay on same-sex "marriages" in California.
Here's the problem.
The Ninth Circuit Court does not yet have the legal power to lift the stay.
A Supreme Court decision does not carry the force of law until a judgement is issued in the form of a certified copy of the Court's order and opinion to the lower court.
This happens 25 days after the Supreme Court ruling is handed down, unless it's an emergency and the Supreme Court expressly orders something different---which they did not do in this case.
We hear a lot about "fairness" and "equality" in the marriage issue. But does "fairness" and "equality" apply only to those wishing to redefine marriage, or does it also apply to those who support and defend natural marriage?
The 25 day delay is deliberate. The Supreme Court says it is to give the losing party time to file a petition for re-hearing with the Court, or to raise other post decision issues.
On June 26, just hours after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on California's Proposition 8, the Supreme Court transmitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court.
All lawyers associated with the Prop. 8 case received a copy of the letter at 2:54 PM.
The letter specifically informs the Ninth Circuit Court, "The judgement or mandate of this [ Supreme] Court will not issue for at least 25 days pursuant to [Supreme Court] Rule 45. Should a petition for re-hearing be filed timely, the judgement or mandate will be further stayed pending this Court's action on the petition for re-hearing."
Despite this order from the Supreme Court, within minutes, the Ninth Circuit Court lifted the stay and same-sex "marriages" began in California. Illegally.
Think about this.
The Ninth Circuit Court took their illegal action at 3:23 PM, PDT. California Attorney General Kamala Harris Tweeted just 12 minutes later---at 3:35 PM, PDT, that she was on her way to San Francisco to "marry" the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case.
In fact, the A/G's personal Tweet was out 4 minutes before Associated Press Tweeted the ruling.
Some are asking how all this could have been staged so quickly without some advance knowledge. And did the activists who seek to redefine marriage have an unusual high degree of confidence that regardless of what happens, Justice Kennedy will stand with them? Who knows.
California's officials have a history of disregard for the law in their rush to redefine marriage.
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is now Lt. Governor, performed same-sex "marriages" at city hall and issued licenses even though they were clearly illegal at the time they were issued.
When California's Supreme Court struck down Prop 8 in 2008, California officials did the same thing. There seems to be no regard for the rule of law if it stands in the way of redefining marriage.
President Obama has shown the same disdain for the federal law in regard to redefining marriage.
When the lesbian plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case sued California to overturn the vote of the people, the California Governor and Attorney General violated their oaths of office by refusing to defend their own California Constitution.
But apparently upholding the rule of law has also taken on an "evolving" importance.
Yesterday afternoon Justice Kennedy acted on the ADF request.
Here is how KOMO News in Seattle reported it:
As gay pride parades were happening around the country in several major U.S. cities, supporters of gay marriage got more good news Sunday when Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy denied a last-ditch request from the sponsors of California's now-overturned gay marriage ban to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation's most populous state.
Kennedy turned away the appeal with no additional comment as the 43rd annual pride parade was getting underway in San Francisco, where dozens of couples have gotten married since Friday and where the clerk's office remained open to issue more licenses on Sunday.
Same-sex marriage opponents asked Kennedy to step in on Saturday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward by lifting a hold it had imposed on such unions while a lawsuit challenging the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage made its way to and through the high court.
Kennedy's denial of due process of the law says a great deal about fairness and equality. It's ironic the effort to redefine marriage has been framed around the idea of equality, yet equality of due process seems to have been denied yesterday. Apparently equality and fairness are selectively applied as needed to advance certain agendas and restrict others.
I personally believe his apparent "brushing off" of ADF's request will further erode the confidence conservatives and people of faith have in our political and judicial system.
More on this issue will be in the news today, but from my point of view, at this moment, it is profoundly disappointing. And begs for an explanation.
Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.