Posted on 06/27/2015 6:10:57 AM PDT by markomalley
The High Court voted in a sweeping broad-based decision that sodomite marriage is a constitutional right. The vote went as largely expected in a 5–4 ruling where Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy, a long time ally for homosexual rights, equated the struggle for sodomite marriage to the civil rights battle for blacks in the 1960s.
In a giant step going even further, Kennedy also addressed the issue of the children of homosexual couples, saying they had a right not to be humiliated by their parents not being legally recognized as married.
Reports from various gay and gay-friendly media are saying that the fix has been on this for quite some time, even down to the day of the decision being released. Earlier in the week, the Court announced it was adding Friday, June 26, to what are called “hand-down” days, referring to days on which decisions are handed down. That is somewhat unusual because decisions are not generally handed down on Fridays.
However, this Friday happens to be June 26 — a very significant date for the synergy between the homofascist movement and the courts. The New York Times recently reported that Justice Kennedy has a homosexual law clerk this term. His name is Joshua Matz. Matz wrote a law review article a couple of years back called "The Constitutional Inevitability of Same-Sex Marriage." It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that Matz let his boss know that June 26t is a virtual holy day in the gay culture.
The decision coming down today on June 26 makes this date the day of decision for three of Justice Kennedy’s four big gay cases, all favorable to homofascists — Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell — Obergefell of course being today's decision — all of them being decided on June 26 in various years. A fourth case was decided on another date.
Writing the majority opinion in this case virtually enshrines Justice Kennedy — one of six Catholics on the Court — as the one single individual most responsible for the advancement of sodomy being institutionalized in the United States. In fact, the case could be made — owing to America's power and prestige — the one individual most responsible for the enshrining of homosexuality in history.
Kennedy represents, personifies all that has gone wrong in the Catholic Church in America these past decades.
Another justice, Sonia Sotomayor, is also a baptized Catholic, but she was seated on the bench by Obama and is largely rumored to be a lesbian, or at least extremely friendly to the cause. Kennedy, however, is a Reagan appointee and had been the hope of many solid Catholics back in the day to be the one to stop — or at least slow — the aggressive push in U.S. courts for immorality.
At this day and time, perhaps no man on earth more personifies the line from the Psalms: "Do not put your trust in princes."
It is worth pausing here and noting that the continual slide into Hell of America has been aided and abetted and in many cases even led by traitorous Catholics — some of them lay people, others clerics. Doctor John Rock, a Catholic, invented the birth control pill. Ted Kennedy, even from his death bed, championed Obamacare with its contraceptive mandate and abortion funding. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius and a host of others from the Catholic Rogues Gallery have all turned traitor.
It is established tradition now that among powerful or influential American Catholics that they abandon the Faith and give themselves over to Lucifer, the most recent of which is Anthony Kennedy. With this diabolical victory now in hand, faithful Catholics should now see the hand-writing on the wall. It has never been enough for the homofascist movement to just achieve equality. Advocates want those who disagree forced to submit and sign off and give their approval to homosexuality as a natural good. This decision will be used to force that issue in areas of employment, commerce, education, health care, courts, even religious institutions.
Catholics should not see this as an end. It is now just the beginning. Be prepared for the persecution that will come — because it will surely come.
To reinforce something this article begins to mention, I would like to point out the current religious affiliations of each member of the U. S. Supreme Court:
There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen).
Nary a Protestant Christian.
What makes you think that a ELCA Lutheran, a UMC Methodist, a PCUSA Presbysterian, an American Baptist, a TEC Episcopalian, etc., would have gotten it right?
The bottom line is that four of the justices got it right and believed that the Constitution is a document limiting the power of the Federal Government. Five of the justices got it wrong and voted for tyranny.
Was it? You specified "Protestant," I didn't.
Nevertheless, let's look at Baptists.
Would the Honorable Lindsay Graham make a fine SCOTUS justice?
How about Al Green (TX)?
How about Stenny Hoyer (MD)?
How about Sanford Bishop (GA)?
How about William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (AR)?
How about James Earl Carter (GA)?
I'm not trying to characterize all Baptists by the above list, not hardly.
But the fact of the matter is that you just can't predict. One would think that a Catholic justice or a Catholic member of Congress would be typically pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, just based upon the teachings of the Church. We know that this is hardly the case.
And, interestingly, we have to remember that Kennedy was appointed by Reagan...I would like to think that Reagan did not have this result in mind when he made the appointment. Just as I would hope that GW Bush did not have the result we got with Roberts in mind when he appointed him Chief.
Similarly, is it safe to assume because somebody is a Baptist that they would rule appropriately once appointed to the SCOTUS? One would hope so...just as 4 of the 6 Catholic justices ruled correctly in the same sex "marriage" case and 3 of the 6 ruled correctly in the SCOTUSCare case. But, just as two / three of the six voted opposite of the teachings of the Church, I wouldn't predict an outcome automatically.
Two of the six Roman Catholics of good standing on the Supreme Court voted FOR this abomination to God.
Something very needful is lacking in these TWO ROGUE ROMAN CATHOLIC JUSTICES who have deviated from TRADITIONAL Judeo-Christian law as PRESENTLY TAUGHT AND PRACTICED by the Roman Catholic Church, purported by some FReepers to be the ONLY true Christian Church.
BTW, another couple of interesting pieces of trivia:
Clarence Thomas was born a Catholic. He went to seminary as a young man but left it and left the Church because of rampant racism on the part of other seminarians — he then became an Episcopalian. He only returned to the Church in 1995, 3 years after he’d been named to the Court.
Robert Bork, who, had he been confirmed, would have been Jewish Justice #3, was received into the Catholic Church in 2003.
Actually, I was not responding to your last post...I was interrupted mid-post. And, actually, you were bemoaning a lack of Protestant justices. The fact that Thomas was, at his appointment, Protestant, it seems to me is pertinent to the discussion.
Anyway, to your agitated demand...
First of all, I do not know if Sonia Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic. I know she was baptized but have no idea how many years / decades its been since she's set foot in a Catholic Church. According to the Obama Administration:
“Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events.”
I likewise do not know if Anthony Kennedy is a practicing Catholic these days or not.
So there is very, very little that could be done to Sotomayor by the Church. Why bother excommuicating her when she has effectively excommunicated herself?
As far as Kennedy is concerned, yes, in theory, Cardinal Wuerl could call him in for counseling (assuming he lives in the District or MD...don't know one way or the other). Yes, in theory, Cardinal Wuerl could direct clergy to deny him Communion per Canon 915.
But, face it, we're dealing with Cardinal Donna Wuerl here. Nothing whatsoever is going to happen "to him" as a result of his decision. Nothing until his Particular Judgment, at least.
As far as what can be done to minimize this from happening? (It cannot absolutely be done away with any more than Southern Baptists cannot guarantee not generating another Jimmuh Carter or Bill Clinton)
Honestly, it will take a generation or more to undo the damage done by mamby-pamby weak-kneed Catholics, both laity and clergy...and that is assuming that the entire hierarchy, from deacons on up, could be wholesale replaced at one blow. Otherwise, it is going to take generations to undo the damage just as it took generations to create the damage. You will note the encyclical letter from Leo XIII I quoted in Comment #1. That was written in 1899. You might want to read that quote again, carefully. The problem already existed back then and, considering the speed of communications back then, had existed for decades before that time.
What it will take, in all reality, is for faithful Catholics to have the courage to stand up for the truth. To demand that of their clergy, as is the right of every faithful Catholic. And to faithfully catechize the young in what the Church really teaches...not this gobbeldy-gook "be nice" "eco-friendly" "hand-in-hand with the government" crap that is being passed out as Catholicism.
Because of these two justices, should Catholics be prohibited from serving in public life? Sure, why not. If that's what you want.
Because of these two justices, should Catholics be prohibited from voting? Absolutely.
Because of these two justices, should Catholcis be stripped of their citizenship and deported? Sounds good to me.
Because of these two justices, should Catholics be lined up against a wall and shot? Of course!
Give me a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.