The cave-in Catholic is, like the Republican In Name Only, a fake. A six pound note. The fifth column.
The cave-in Catholic wants you not to be Catholic – much less fight for Catholic values – whilst trying not to appear a coward; in the most hopeless cases, he even tries to look smart.
The cave-in Catholic loves playing armchair general, only he can’t be a general even from the armchair. To him, not to fight is smart. He’ll lose the battle all right, but he’ll try to persuade you it was very smart not to fight it, because this way he has, whilst losing, avoided defeat.
The cave-in Catholic cares for pretty much everything under the sun, except Catholicism. This is a lost battle, he will say. Not good for the cause. Let’s fight only the battles we know we’ll going to win, it’s so much smarter.The polls say we can’t win. The BBC is against us. If we lose, we’ll be sent back into the catacombs in no time, so we had better… lose. We shouldn’t fight, because if we fight our enemies will rejoice at their victory, whilst if we don’t fight they will merely rejoice that they have won without even having to fight. How smart is that…
The cave-in Catholic has, more often than not, some serious problem. He doesn’t believe in God, hence his problem with fighting a battle he sees as lost. Or he is dissenting in some way of his, and therefore fears the calls to orthodoxy unavoidably linked to the hardening of the religious climate. Or he is, say, a sodomite, and there are some battles he would like to, erm, not see fought at all. I suspect of the latter there is, both with and without clerical garb, more than you think.
You recognise the cave-in Catholic even before he tells you how smart it is to be a coward. He will be, at all times, politically correct. He will use the word “gay”, perhaps because he isn’t exactly exempt from that kind of “feeling” himself. He’ll sprinkle with “women’s right”, and will say “pro-choice” because “abortionist” is “divisive”. He will never call to battle. He will hide behind the finger always used in this occasion: not the right time, not the right place, not the right weather, not the right battle, not the right moon phase. not the right media support. The main thing is not to expose himself as a coward, or worse.
The cave-in Catholic is everywhere. He can be a nun, a priest, a professor in a Catholic university, or a soi-disant Catholic journalist. Very often, he is a bishop or archbishop. In some countries, it would seem this is a strict requirement to become the latter.
The cave-in Catholic knows every time he talks of cunningly surrendering he’ll find people ready to believe him, or even to think him smart. What a brilliant strategy, to lose without fighting. A bit like the boy bullied at school and trying to persuade you he is pursuing a brilliant long-term strategy based on the tactic of submission.
The cave-in Catholic is, at any one time, just one click away.
Do the right thing, and click him away.
This man is truly a plague. An unspeakable disgrace. A heathen. An enemy of the Church.
Read from the “Telegraph” what he has now the gut to say, utterly unafraid of sanction from incompetent people in Rome.
The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock
When ever have you heard, in the entire history of Catholicism, an Archbishop saying such things?
Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives…”
experience of… WHAT??
Has the Archbishop ever heard of sodomy? Or does he pretend not to know what happens during the “experience of love”?
“I would want them to be respected, but I would want them to have a vision in themselves that what they are called to is not marriage but a very profound and lifelong friendship.”
Here, the usual weasel words. “Friendship”. Let’s pretend this friendship is not sexual. This is the usual Jesuitical Nichols for you. Let us encourage sodomy. Let us institutionalise it. Let us allow sodomites to have “rights” as sodomites. Just ignore the sodomy, would you?
With this logic, I can’t wait the day Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will praise the “experience of love” between a man and his seven years old lover, telling them he “wants them to be respected” and calling them to a “lifelong friendship”.
What society says, I believe, is the best circumstances for conceiving and bringing up children is the partnership between two natural parents.
God, give me strenght. This man goes on saying children can be brought up by sodomites – or lesbians – but this is not the best way. Ideally, we would have natural parents. But hey, Elton John and the other circus tool aren’t so bad, either.
The article goes on referring the delirious consideration of Nick Herbert, Home Office Minister. Things that would have been sufficient to consider whether a madhouse is not the right place for him, only two generations ago.
In this generation, madmen are in government. And in this generation, Archbishops reinforce the message that same-sex relationship are fine and must receive institutional protection with the lame excuse of wanting to protect marriage, in the very same breath as they undermine it. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Make no mistake, Nichols is one of the devil.One who would have been considered evil even by anticlerical atheists in, say, the Italy of the Fifties, where even Communists had rather rigid – and correct – ideas about sexual morality.
Quo usque tandem? Alas, as the current Pontiff is occupied in saying to the SSPX they are not obedient enough, I doubt anything will happen during his pontificate.
Let us pray the next Pope will show more will to clean the Augean Stables of the E & W hierarchy, as wonderfully represented by Nichols.
And seriously: thank God for the Society of St. Pius X, helping us all to keep sanity well in mind as our shepherds want to lead us to ruin with them.
On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.
I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.
On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.
On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.
Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.
In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:
‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,…………‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’
The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.
Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.
Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.
Some days ago, Father Ray Blake posted the text of the letter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith about that logical impossibility some people call “homosexual marriage”.
It was, at that time, not clear yet whether the Abp would instruct the priests to read the letter during the homily. It appears this was the case, so let us say two words about this.
To say that the text is lame is still not enough to do justice to it. This text is not lame, it is outright cowardly. Whilst (semel in anno) ++Nichols even defends (at least formally) the Church’s position on sexual perversion, it is very clear this letter is meant to do no harm, and to let everyone with a bit of salt in his head understand the real message: “we are not going to prepare ourselves for a fight; please understand we must make some rumours for the sake of the job, but really, you can count on our collaboration”.
Listening to the letter this morning as it was read in the church I, again, was confirmed in my analysis of the text: weak to the point of complicity.
If we had Christian bishops in this land I would not need to point out this is not a discussion about the opening times of pubs, or about the proposed abolition of the 70 miles/hour speed limit. This goes at the root of a Christian society. In every country in which the bishops fear hell, this would occasion such a conflict to let Mr “Chameleon” Cameron understand that with his politics he has made a great number of enemies for himself; some of them influential, some of them wealthy, all of them now fully determined to see him out. Not one tenth of this is happening now in the UK. On the contrary, “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Smith are, in fact, reassuring Cameron no war will be waged.
This attitude reminds one of Paul VI who reacted to the Dutch Schism by writing to the bishops and explaining them how they were supposed to think, without taking further measures. Clearly, such a behaviour confirmed the Dutch bishops they had nothing to fear, and the schism went on for many years until JP II, after several years of pontificate, decided that perhaps the time to act had arrived.
Abp “Quisling” Nichols’ letter now has the same effect: it persuades everyone the way is free, because the Church will not give battle on this.
The despicable, cowardly, unChristian mentality behind this behaviour is the more contemptible because on the other side is not a paladin of some strange secular cause, a man of conviction, one who would even welcome and relish the fight. No, on the other side is the most shameless whore of British politics in the XXI century; one who wouldn’t have any qualm in throwing the legislation in the rubbish bin the second after he realises it can harm him. It would be fairly easy to persuade him he can have the numbers, but he doesn’t want to have the sworn enemies, and this is going to be his grave in time. Prostitute that he is, Cameron would immediately understand the refrain and start talking about the recovery of traditional values, & Co. Even before he came to power, they didn’t call him “chameleon” for nothing. Also, Cameron’s position as party leader has already put heavily into question, and he certainly doesn’t wish a renewal of the troubles of the last months.
So, we are now facing a battle where the main opponent (the Church) has already said – in so many words – he doesn’t want to fight. Opposition will come from other corners, and the battle will not be so easy for the once blue, now pink “Conservatives”. If the Church had put herself “at the head of the movement”, the conservative fringes of the Anglicans would have been motivated in putting a harder opposition – or be more effective with it – whilst it would have been easier for real Conservatives within the Party to express their disagreement in a definitive way – like “get rid of it, Dave, sharpish” – rather than now having to fight an uphill battle.
This was so bad, it can only have come from Abp Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
But seriously, I wonder how blind and deaf are those in Rome, and how long will it take before they get rid of this bunch of cowards and give us Bishops who believe, erm, all that the Church believes.
Cardinal O’Brien is the Head of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland. Being a Cardinal whilst Nichols still isn’t (though I do not doubt he will soon get his red hat, no matter how shameless he is; he knows that too, by the way) he is the most senior cleric active in the United Kingdom.
Now, this very same Cardinal has fired with rather powerful cannons at the degenerate proposals of our Friends of the Perverts, the Prime Minister Dave “Chameleon” Cameron, to redefine marriage to suit the needs of a minority of perverts, and make himself beautiful with that part of the population become insensitive to the same concept of perversion (“orientation” is the word they use).
You can read the article here and I do suggest you click the link and take the time. I will limit myself to some short comments:
1) Boy, this is strong tobacco. I had complained only yesterday the post Vatican-II clergy can’t speak plainly anymore, and the Cardinal shows me I am wrong the very same day. The tone is more than severe, it is outright harsh: the cry of “madness”, the accusation of the government to want to “redefine reality”, the warning that the measure would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world” are all meant to show what a cretin the Prime Minster is. His Grace can’t say that in so many words of course,but the meaning is clear. Try this:
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
(I’m sure Nichols would be “nuanced” on that. But you knew it already…).
2) The Cardinal makes very clear how stupid it is to give the perverts one hand, hoping they will not want to take the entire arm. Try this (emphases mine):
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing same-sex couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
This is the usual modus operandi of the sensitive Nazi: the demolition of Christian society one piece at a time, promising every time this is the last one.
Note when the Cardinal says “Those of us who were not in favour” he clearly implies some of the bishops were in favour. We know who they were (and are), and I think the Cardinal wants us to take notice some of the bishop naively (to say the least) tried to defend the measures, and receive now the bill of their (to say the least) naiveté.
3) An intervention of such tenor from a Scottish prelate in an English matter is an open indictment to Archbishop Nichols: it is obvious O’Brien had to intervene with energy, because Nichols won’t. The cowardice, nay, complicity of Nichols in what the Government is trying to do is exposed the more openly by the harshness of Cardinal O’Brien’s words. Of course, I do not doubt Nichols is not against emitting some vague rumour about his disapproval of the proposed measures. He simply has to. But really, he can’t fool anyone anymore.
Nichols is a shame and a daily scandal. His complicity with Cameron and the homosexual Mafia is beyond disgusting. He is the worst enemy of Catholicism in this country, then if we had a Catholic at his place a first-class coward like Cameron would not even dare to think about homo-marriages.
Please click the link and read the entire interview. It is a pleasure to read a British prelate show some teeth. And please pray we can be freed of Nichols one day, and never too soon.
It is almost Christmas, and yours truly has decided to write a short post about the way Christianity has traditionally dealt – in charity – with the issue of same-sex attractions.
We all know that, whilst the Church has always condemned the actual act of sodomy – we say this in a very low voice of course, as we understand the Holy Ghost is sending different signals now, as he has been doing these last 60 years – Christianity has always been very understanding of the actual luuv experienced – no doubt, because of the influence of the Holy Ghost – by many saintly couples with same-sex attraction.You know by now that an enormous number of saints was homosexual (Saint Elton The Adopter, and Saint Stephen Fry come to mind) as was an inordinate number of bishops, cardinals, Popes, Roman Emperors, and Jedi like, say, Lucia Skywalker and Yodaola The Minute Lesbian.
Already in Roman times, same-sex ceremonies were celebrated everywhere. It is recorded what one of the first bishop, Vincentius, had to say on the matter:
“We do not oppose same-sex partnership. We recognise in Roman Law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that this are not the same as marriage”.
This is the reason, dear reader, why for two thousand years the Church has known two parallel institutions:marriage (destined for those of opposite sex, and having as their aim procreation) and civil partnership (destined for those with same-sex attractions, but living together in an oh so edifying chaste life; actually an example for us all, wretched sinners…..).
As you can see from the writings of this early Veterinary of the Church, same-sex couples were basically everywhere, and their oh so chaste life celebrate by other Christians as a true example of Christian virtue.
This is why we read in Romans the following words:
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
But those who, being filled with deceit, malignity and malice, did not have sexual intercourse, received in themselves the recompense which is due to their virtue, and stability was given to their relationship*.
As Vincentius already explained to us – and as it has been constant teaching of the Church these two thousand years – the Church’s censure does not refer to same-sex attractions, but merely to the sodomite act. The sodomite act is – at risk of being uncharitable; which we are not; or course we aren’t; perish the thought – not the best choice; suboptimal at worst; somewhat short of the ideal; and who are we to judge, anyway…
At the same time, said Vincentius, same-sex fellowships are different. For those, he said,
“we are very nuanced”. “Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation within the Roman Empire use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship”.
This is, my dear readers, why same-sex civil partnership have become such an indissoluble component of Christian civilisation, without which the Christian West would have been unthinkable. This is why, from time immemorial, the Church has celebrated chaste homosexual partnerships and honoured them in poetry, music, painting, and the like. Think of Raphael’s “Marriage of the Eunuchs”, or Masaccio’s “Peter Tatchell and his child-bridegroom”. This is also why your grandmother, who was justly terrified at the idea of global warming, did not object to her neighbours living in an homosexual – chaste, of course – relationship in the least, and participated to “orgoglio allegro” (which then spread to the Anglo-Saxon world, and became known as “gay pride”) together with all her female and gay friends; all of them celebrating tolerance, inclusiveness, and being oh so nice with each other. That was, you see, a Christian world. So nice!
It is really, really unfortunate that after two thousand years of celebrating diversity, of authentic Christian tradition of homosexual partnership, these miserable Birkenstock-wearer and assorted Sixty-Eighters should try to re-invent Christianity and tell us same-sex attraction is….. a perversion!
I blame Vatican II!
Just stop and think……
how charitable we all were!
* this is an ancient text, in the past believed an interpolation but now proved authentic after it was found in Vincentius’ own Bible text.
Absolutely brilliant blog post from the “Little Catholic Bubble” about misguided compassion.
The author of the blog first describes her observation that
The culture has quickly moved from complete aversion to gay “marriage” (which was unthinkable even fifteen years ago) to the beginnings of real acceptance. I’ve noticed that most who have moved towards acceptance have done so out of a misguided sense of compassion.
We see here the poisoned fruits of a culture that has substituted Christianity with a wooly “let us feel good” mentality, where too many believe that, provided one “doesn’t harm anyone” (I didn’t know sodomy doesn’t harm, by the way), then it is all fine because we are oh sooo charitable.
When you have to explain to anyone that a sin is harmful because it offends God, you know that Christianity is in trouble.
But the fact is, the author continues, that such misguided compassion harms Christianity (and Catholicism) in a very direct way, by being used as a weapon to attack Catholic institutions: this is what we are seeing in several American states regarding adoption agencies, a story seen in similar ways in the United Kingdom and that has relevance for everyone of us in his daily life (try being a bad-and-breakfast owner and have to accept pervert in the house you live, and then tell me….).
A second, but crucial issue is the one of “discrimination”: if it is accepted that perversion is all right, then calling perversion as it is suddenly becomes discrimination, and hate speech; and the person must be very stupid who believes that liberals will be anywhere near “liberal” with everyone disagreeing with them. The author puts it, again, brilliantly:
when grave sin is re-categorized as a societal virtue and a civil right, then you and your Church are suddenly the ones in violation and will be penalized for speaking or acting in opposition.
The fact is, very simply, that the liberal is the enemy of the Church. To try to appease him is a feat of Chamberlain-like stupidity. It is the foolish idea that you can live together with those who want to get rid of you, and will have them as friends if you help them to do so. To say it again with the words of the author:
And so I implore you, fellow Catholics: Stop trying to “get along” with the world. The world hates you as it hated Christ, an assurance we have from Our Lord Himself. The new age of secularism is upon us, and its endless drone of “tolerance” does not apply to you.
It is time to wake up and realise that we are living a new, if not less dramatic than the old one, clash of civilisations: the Christian world against the new secular/liberal Nazism. This Nazism has already made vast inroads into our Christian societies, with abortion, euthanasia, and sexual perversions being just some example. Having being allowed to go as far, it is now moving toward the destruction of Christianity, which they – make no mistake on this, or you’ll pay the price – rightly see as in total opposition to their ideology and world vision.
It is perfectly coherent for a secularist to want to destroy Christianity. But it is perfectly stupid for a Christian to help them do so and feel good in the process.
We need a war cry to get out loud and clear from the Christian ranks. We need to realise that this is not about tolerance, or compassion. This is about the survival of Christian civilisation or its transformation in a world dominated by Nazi poofs. The cry that should go up from the Christian world is the one you hear above, courtesy of the genius of Giuseppe Verdi:
Guerra! Guerra! Guerra, guerra, guerra!
Read here the latest post of archbishop Dolan of New York about the recent disgraceful legislation in the US state of New York.
The Bishop makes clear that the battle doesn’t end here, and very laudably dares to say very clearly that what is called homophobia by the fraction of the unrepentant perverts is, in fact, theophobia, “hatred of God”.
I am glad to hear that the Bishop doesn’t want to let the matter rest and promises that the battle will go on. This confirms me in my opinion that this issue is going to stay with us and might well become one of the main themes of the 2012 electoral campaign. I am also pleased to hear that the Church is not going to be intimidated by any calls to force her to admit the “moral validity” of homo so-called “marriages” or face criminal charges. I think that Archbishop Dolan and others in the Church in the US recognise that if they don’t accept the battle now, the battle is going to reach them anyway, but not on their terms and in a position of rear guard, as the liberal Nazis try to suffocate every expression of opinion that doesn’t correspond with their own as “hate speech”, or the like. I particularly liked the archbishop’s beautiful words that “no unfortunate legislative attempt can alter reality and morality”.
Kudos to the archbishop, then.
Still, I allow myself two considerations:
1) In order to be effective, words must be followed by facts. The excommunication of the people who, as Dolan himself says, “scandalously claim to be Catholic” is in my eyes indispensable not only to try to save their souls, but more to the point to make the Catholic population aware of the gravity and scandal of such positions.
2) In this respect, Archbishop Dolan’s record is not entirely free from blame, as in his very own diocese scandalous homo masses continue to be celebrated, and behind words of convenience homosexual lifestyle continues to be promoted by the (of course) Jesuits of the church of St. Francis Xavier, where participation to so-called “gay pride” marches continues to be promoted and advertised, and rather blasphemous symbols like a rainbow crucifix can be seen (no, ladies: Jesus was not a homo; nor did he approve of homosexual practices. Cfr Mt. 10:15; nor can the Cross ever be misused in such a disgusting way).
Catholic doctrine requires that when war is waged, the intention must be to win it. Nothing less than all out confrontation is required if we want the Catholic electorate to wake up to the danger for the Christian future of the country, for its freedom of expression and, let us not forget, for their own souls.
Archbishop Dolan has been, I think, rather good at launching the car in the first gear. It is now time to put a heavy foot on the clutch pedal and get into second and third.
Starting from his own diocese.
I generally do not indulge in such rhetorical questions, but this time the question doesn’t appear very rhetorical.
For you non-Americans, the story in very short format. In 2000, the citizens of California vote in a referendum a proposition (“Proposition 22”) to ban homosexual so-called marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court strikes down the referendum decision because “unconstitutional”, that is: the court decides that the people are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count.
The citizens of California then proceed to held a second referendum on Election Day 2008 to have homo-marriages banned (“Proposition 8”) and give it a majority for the second time; this time the approved proposal is that the ban be inserted in the Californian Constitution so that the judges of the California Supreme Court will not be able to play God or to decide that they are naughty and therefore their will doesn’t count, again.
With the California Supreme Court now out of the game a single man, a judge of the Federal District Court called Vaughn Walker, has decided once again that the citizens of California are naughty and so their will doesn’t count. This will now go to the appeal court (the notorious 9th circuit, secular and liberal as they come and therefore largely expected to upheld the ruling) and then to the Supreme Court. In his gracious omnipotence, the judge has apparently decided that the ruling be suspended pending appeal.
I will write in a different entry about the sentence in itself; details are starting to get through and the sentence seems to me an astonishing show of idiocy and ideological blindness, but this is for another day.
What I am thinking now is: what is happening to the American democracy? Do the American citizen really think that the sovereignty should ultimately rest by the judges?
I do not even want to begin the discussion whether a ban of homo marriages be “moral” or not. Of course it is, but it is not about that. It is about the fact that the people have chosen, and they have even chosen twice. We have here a situation where the electorate continues to decide in one sense and the courts continue to decide that they are wrong. To me, this is courtocracy battling against democracy.
This is sheer madness. It is as if there was a sort of Ayatollah of Political Correctness deciding that every piece of legislation must comply with the Supreme Mantra or be struck down. But the fact is: this is NOT democratic thinking. Democratic thinking is to accept that once a decision has been democratically achieved, this decision is respected as long as the voters do not take (in whatever form, through a referendum or through their democratically elected representatives) a new decision.
Take Italy. Once a Referendum has led to a decision a new referendum on the matter is forbidden for five years and never has the Corte Costituzionale dared to question a democratically formed decision. In a democracy, you just don’t walk over the electorate like that and when the people have spoken, no judge can interfere about the fundamental “morality” of the decision.
Here we have the absurd situation that several million people have voted for a very clear question involving fundamental moral principles and a single judge decides that the will of these several million people should just not be considered. One man! This is not a democracy anymore, this is dictatorship of the courts. The fact that further rulings are now expected does not change an iota in the fundamental matter that it will still be judges deciding whether the will of the people applies or not. Also the fact that the decision is suspended pending appeal does not change that it was the judge himself deciding so. Madness.
If the people of California are not free to even decide about the most basic ethical and religious principle of life in common anymore; if even fundamental expressions of the people’s will must be “cleared” by a judge after the vote; if several millions decide in one sense, but one man can decide that they were not entitled to do it, where has democracy gone?
I say it once again: in a country like Italy (with a fairly recent experience of dictatorship and therefore a high degree of sensitivity towards “expropriations” of this power through other powers of the State) there wouldn’t be such discussions in the first place. A referendum must be approved beforehand by the Corte Costituzionale to make sure that it is in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Italian constitutional system (say: you can’t have a referendum to abolish democracy, because democracy is a constitutionally protected principle) but once the referendum has been held the people have spoken and that’s that. Also unthinkable is the concept that the Court may feel authorised to decide about the morality of the decision. This is not for them to decide, but for the people themselves.
If someone (perhaps: American?) can give more colour, I am grateful. As it is now, the entire system appears bonkers to me.