Monday, July 01, 2013

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Denies Justice To Pro-Marriage Citizens

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

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.

6 comments:

  1. Oshtur Vishanti said...
    Reading around the only legal scholars that support this interpretation are ones that were already known to actively support Prop 8 - odd that.

    A petition for rehearing could still be put before the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit court stay whether it exists or not has nothing to do with that. The 9th is under no obligation to wait for the Supreme Court's final decision to remove the stay, its very existence was their own choice - they could have send the case to the SCOTUS without a stay and it was not required or needed by the SCOTUS for it to do its job.

    I'm sure you aren't happy about what happened but nothing illegal happened. This case was decided the way it was because if it had been decided on the merits it would have been so just like DOMA - treating people with the same rights differently is a violation of the 5th amendment.

    The problem I run into is that many on both sides of this case don't even understand what issues were really before the court, and the disheartening thing is that when talked about it becomes clear they have no desire to find them out - its way more fun for them getting all hysterical about issues that never even really at play. If the Prop 8 supporters had understood this they would have been contesting SCOCA's decision on the review of Prop 8 because that was what really made it impossible for the Prop 8 side win.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Faith and Freedom Staff10:18 AM, July 01, 2013

    The above post originally contained a link. e have repeatedly ask those who post not to include links. We have removed the link and posted the comments. In the future we will delete the post if it contains a link.
    Faith and Freedom Staff

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let the next American Revolutionary War begin. We will choose jail over allowing our tax dollars to be spent supporting homosexual marriage, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia. We especially choose jail over our tax dollars supporting the Murder/Abortion of God's innocents. They are people, just like you and me, at the very beginning of their lives. have you seen the pictures of Gosnell's slaughtered full-term babies? Have you seen the photos of Steven's full-term babies, whose heads he twisted off in order to kill? The excruciating pain that these children suffered should haunt these men forever--it won't. Please google Margaret Sanger, a good friend of Hitler and co-founder, back in the day, of Planned Parenthood. Their goal was Genocide of the Black Race. A full one-third of murdered, aborted, sacrificed babies are Black Americans. Black America, along with the rest of us, must cry out for an end to the Genocide and the death of all of these innocents. Blessings, Kathleen

    ReplyDelete
  4. The losing side in these cases is trying to claim there's some sort of conspiratorial or lawless activity going on, when really there is none.

    If you want to read a truthful assessment of events and court rules, read from SCOTUSblog (a non-partisan blog covering Supreme Court events) here:

    The money quote:

    "As a formal matter, the Ninth Circuit did not put the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case into effect prematurely. The Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 could not file appeals in federal court. That ruling says nothing about imposing or lifting a stay on same-sex marriage. The court of appeals likely has the authority to act with respect to its own previously entered stay, which is a form of controlling its own docket. Although the court of appeals had previously stated that they stay would remain in effect until the Supreme Court’s ruling was final, it presumably can change its mind."

    Regarding AG Kamala Harris' tweet about marriages: She is the one who requested the stay be lifted, so OF COURSE she and her team were following the events at the court and were likely the first to be notified.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This motion had no merit. Also, under the Rules of the Supreme Court, Protect Marriage and ADF have the option to re-file the motion before any other Justice. So why haven't they done so?

    It is too bad that you want to target Justice Kennedy by name, but you refuse to acknowledge that it was Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the opinion which denied standing to Protect Marriage. He was joined in that opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito. These are the judges you should be blaming. Justice Kennedy held that Protect Marriage *did* have standing, so you should be applauding him.

    As usual, Gary, your blog posts are very misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yochanon (John) 3:3 YESHUAansered and said unto him, Truly, Truly (Verily, Verily) I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of G-D. I Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of G-D? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abuses of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous,nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of G-D. (11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the L-rd YESHUA, and by the SPIRIT of our G-D. Romans 1:21-32 Because that, when they knew G=D, they glorified HIM not as G-D, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible G-D into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and forufooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore G-D also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of G-D into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause G-D gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain G-D in their knowledge, G-D gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of G-D, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of G-D, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.