1. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  2. Lenten Mission

  3. Moscow Conference

  4. Ask Father


Alabama Takes a Stand

by Christopher A. Ferrara
March 6, 2015

While the controllers of the Phony Synod are attempting to foist on the Church an appreciation of the “positive elements” in “homosexual unions” — a truly diabolical turn in the ongoing crisis in the Catholic Church — the Alabama Supreme Court has taken a courageous stand against a federal district court’s attempt to compel Alabama probate courts to issue marriage licenses that would give “homosexual unions” the same legal status as marriage. 

By a vote of 7-to-1 the Alabama high court has issued nothing less than a defiant “NO” to the federal court’s attempt to declare “unconstitutional” under the Fourteenth Amendment Alabama’s statutory definition of marriage as limited to unions between a man and woman.  As the Alabama court declared:  “We find that the provisions of Alabama law contemplating the issuance of marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples do not violate the United States Constitution and that the Constitution does not alter or override the ministerial duties of the respondents under Alabama law.” The court ordered that, despite a federal injunction to the contrary, probate courts are not to issue marriage licenses to “gay couples.”

The 134-page opinion by the Supreme Court of Alabama (SCA) is a masterpiece of elegant judicial reasoning that puts even the conservative minority of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to shame. SCA openly refuses to follow the SCOTUS’s majority’s recent imaginary jurisprudence, which finds in the Constitution a “fundamental” right of homosexuals to marry.  In earlier Supreme Court decisions on the right to marry (including Loving v. Virginia), notes the SCA opinion, SCOTUS “plainly was referring to traditional marriage” not the newly invented notion of “gay marriage.”

The SCA’s opinion deftly exposes the trickery involved in first changing the definition of marriage to include “homosexual unions” for the first time in Western history and then declaring that the new definition is “fundamental” to constitutional liberty:

Thus, what the federal district court has done is to declare an entirely new concept of “marriage” a fundamental right under the guise of the previously understood meaning of that institution. It is, plainly and simply, circular reasoning — it assumes the conclusion of the matter, i.e., that marriage as newly defined is a fundamental right, in the premise of the question without acknowledging that a change of terms has occurred.

Equally deft is the SCA’s exposure of the self-contradiction in the argument that a marriage license is a mere formality but that the right to obtain one is “fundamental”:

Proponents of the new definition of marriage therefore leave us with an untenable contradiction. On the one hand, they insist that expanding the definition of marriage to include relationships between members of the same sex constitutes nothing more than offering marriage licenses to another class of individuals…. On the other hand, proponents of same-sex marriage contend that this new definition of marriage is so fundamental that the Constitution prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, yet they are unable to articulate a fundamental element of their definition of marriage that would justify government sponsorship of it.

And then there is this gem, responding to the argument that “love” mandates that “gay couples” receive marriage licenses as the seal of their “love.” Here SCA turns the purely secular and bureaucratic apparatus of civil marriage against itself:

Another possible answer to the question is love. Under this theory, a person has a right to marry the person he or she loves regardless of that person’s gender. This notion has broad public appeal and is, perhaps, the mantra most repeated in public discussions of this matter. But although love may be an important factor in a lasting marriage, civil marriage has no public interest in whether the people seeking a marriage license love one another. “[N]o State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love.”

And so, concludes SCA:

As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for “marriage” only between one man and one woman. Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.

There you have it: a state Supreme Court has flatly refused to follow the dictates of a federal court and even the “rights” jurisprudence of SCOTUS. The stage is set for a historic confrontation that could be a turning point in United States history.  Ironically enough, this is the kind of “nullification” of federal law we would never see from an electoral majority at the voting booth. No, it took seven judges with a lot of courage to stand up to an unjust federal law.

God bless the Supreme Court of Alabama. If only the controllers of the Phony Synod had the courage to resist the spirit of the age with this kind of fortitude.  But as Archbishop Pawl Lenga of Kazakhstan has declared in the historic open letter I have quoted more than once: “One can observe at all levels of the Church an obvious decrease of the ‘sacrum.’ The ‘spirit of the world’ feeds the shepherds. The sinners give the Church the instructions for how she has to serve them.”

Our Lady of Fatima has given us the remedy for this civilizational madness.  But it will take infinitely more than the Alabama Supreme Court or any human instrumentality to apply it. The Catholic Church — the Pope and the bishops consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart — are the chosen means.  But, at the moment, what Sister Lucia called “diabolical disorientation” has impeded the fulfillment of Heaven’s command.  The hierarchy fiddles while the West burns.