Sen. Andrew McDonald and Rep. Michael Lawlor at a rally celebrating a State Court ruling favoring gay marriage

All across America, giddy with their new majorities and super majorities, Democrats and their liberal Republican Allies have set themseleves to the task of dismantling American Freedom.

Leaving no stone un-turned, we see, in the Conecticut Legislature, a bill introduced by co-chairs Andrew McDonald and Michael Lawlor to end the control by the Catholic Church of its own parishes in direct and obvious violation of the Constitution.

The blatant and obvious violation of freedoms at the foundation of our country and at the root of our prosperity is rampant. The urge to control the management of institutions over which they hold no legitimate authority seems to recognize no limits; banking, construction, land use, religion, the medical profession… We see it in the fascist attempt to involuntary control the inventory systems and marketing policies of Washington Pharmacies to benefit the abortion industry spearheaded by Gov. Christine Gregoire and ENDORSED BY WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR LUKE ESSER.The following is a letter to the Conecticut Legislature by one of its intended victims, one with interesting credentials.

Attorney Lacovara, a member of the Diocese of Bridgeport, has more than
40 years’ experience as a constitutional law teacher and practitioner.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Dear Member of the Judiciary Committee:

When you entered the Legislature, I assume that you took an oath consistent with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution recognizing that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that all State officials are bound to respect it. 

You now have before your Committee a bill that tests your fidelity to your constitutional duty. The bill is No. 1098, which candidly announces that its purpose is to “revise the corporate governance provisions [of the Connecticut Statutes] applicable to the Roman Catholic Church.” 

In more than forty years as a constitutional law teacher and practitioner, I cannot recall a single piece of proposed legislation at any level of government that more patently runs afoul of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that does this bill.

I write to you as a Connecticut taxpayer, as a Catholic, and as a constitutional lawyer.  This last capacity is most relevant for present purposes.

I have taught constitutional law at Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and Hunter College of the City University of New York.  I also have served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and as Counsel to the Watergate Special Prosecutor.  I have argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, most involving constitutional issues.

I find it utterly astonishing that Bill 1098 could be taken seriously enough to warrant a hearing before your Committee.  I would find it difficult to use it as a “hypothetical” in one of my constitutional law classes, because even first year law students would have so little difficulty seeing why the bill goes well beyond the powers that the Constitution allows the States to exercise in dealing with organized churches.

Ever since we passed beyond the Colonial period during which several Colonies in New England barred Catholics and Catholic priests from practicing their faith as they chose to practice it, all persons — and churches — in this country have been protected by the fundamental guarantee of religious autonomy enshrined in the First Amendment.

One of the key doctrines embodied in this protection of religious liberty is that the State has no legitimate power to intrude into the internal affairs of a hierarchical church.  That is, the guarantee of religious liberty applies not only to the private beliefs of individuals, it also protects the autonomy of organized churches as
such.  That principle has been established for two centuries.  The so-called “internal affairs” doctrine means that the leaders of a hierarchical church have the final and absolute authority to decide how the church will be organized and governed, and no State may override that autonomy by purporting to require that the church be reorganized in some other way simply because a public official may think that a different organization is “better” for the members of the congregation.

The great exponent of First Amendment religious liberty, Justice William Brennan, explained in one of the leading examples of the Supreme Court’s enforcement of religious autonomy against State intrusion that a hierarchical church has exclusive authority to decide whether to reorganize its diocesan corporate structure and that the First Amendment deprives the State of any role in substituting its own views:

“It suffices to note that the reorganization of the Diocese involves a matter of internal church government, an issue at the core of ecclesiastical affairs; Arts. 57 and 64 of the Mother Church constitution commit such questions of church polity to the final province of the Holy Assembly. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344
U.S. 94, 116 (1952), stated that religious freedom encompasses the ‘power [of religious bodies] to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine’.”

The quotation is from Justice Brennan’s opinion for the Court in SERBIAN
ORTHODOX DIOCESE v. MILIVOJEVICH, 426 U.S. 696, 721-22 (1976).

Legislative Bill 1068 is explicitly designed to have the State of Connecticut substitute its view about desirable structure of the governance of the Catholic Church.  AS the Supreme Court has warned over and over, however, a State Legislature may not usurp the power of the Catholic Church to decide this matter for itself “free from state interference.”  There is no doubt that, if the Legislature were to enact this bill, the federal courts would strike it down as unconstitutional on its face.  I urge you not to provoke such a constitutional confrontation.

It has been said that this bill merely revises the existing statute providing for the incorporation of Catholic parishes and that the Legislature must have residual constitutional power to change those provisions as it thinks fit.  This is a fatuous argument.  When a State has the competence to address a matter, it must do in accord  with the Constitution.  For example, the fact that the State may enact
legislation consistent with the Constitution that outlaws racial segregation hardly implies that the Legislature must equally have power to enact legislation commanding racial segregation.

This distinction is obvious and applies here equally.  That, of course, is precisely the logical flaw that dooms the argument put forth by proponents of this bill.

The existing statute defers to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church on the respective roles of the Bishop of the Diocese and his other canonical subordinates, including parish pastors.  It places them in supervisory authority over all of the affairs of the parish communities, including “administrative” affairs.  Within the meaning of Supreme Court cases guaranteeing the autonomy of religious superiors in a hierarchical church such as the Catholic Church over matters of internal governance, the existing statute respects the Church’s autonomy.

By contrast, the bill before your committee would purport to overrule the Church’s absolute autonomy over its form of internal governance and to substitute a form of government that flies in the face of 2000 years of Catholic Church law and practice.  The United States Constitution forbids that assertion of State power.

Finally, it is said that some members of a Catholic parish in which a priest engaged in defalcation have suggested this legislation.  It is easy to find clusters of persons who have pet “reforms” on a wide variety of issues.  I suggest that the responsibility of a member of the State Legislature is to put clear and fundamental constitutional values ahead of political expediency.

In light of what I understand have been the comprehensive efforts of the Church leadership to assure financial responsibility within the Church, this bill seems to be a “solution” in search of a problem.  In any event, it is a “solution” that our constitutional system does not allow the State to impose.

I appreciate your consideration of these views.

Philip Allen Lacovara

Eyman, Fagan, Fagan and Dunmire:

30 initiatives have qualified for the ballot since 1999, voters approved 19

1999′s I-695 put us on the political map.  When we turned in 514,141 voter signatures, the 2nd highest total in state history, Olympia was put on notice that the taxpayers wanted a seat at the table. 

Since 1999, out of the hundreds of initiatives filed, 30 measures have successfully qualified for the ballot. 

Gathering hundreds of thousands of voter signatures in just a few months is astronomically difficult. 

Based on the recent California Supreme Court’s ruling that led to the issuance of marriage licenses to same- sex partners this week, today’s lawsuit contends that restoring the definition of marriage in the State Constitution cannot be legally accomplished by voter initiative, but rather must be passed through a different process for constitutional “revisions”.

Attorneys for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment, said the lawsuit seeking to remove the initiative from the ballot is based on “flimsy” legal arguments and will likely be rejected by the court.

“This is an act of desperation,” said Ron Prentice chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition which is sponsoring the Marriage Amendment. “The voters deserve a chance to vote on this important issue, but our extremist opponents want to silence the voters. This will only energize public support for overturning the court’s decision.”

–
Shared Parenting Works supports United Civil Rights Councils of America, Fathers4Justice/Families4Justice, N.A.Non.Custodial.Moms, 2008 DC Rally, Children Need Both Parents, Cycling4Children, SUPPORT? System Down, R.A.D.A.R, N.C.Free.Men and all other egalitarians worldwide working together for children, families, truth, justice and equality.

“I am convinced that the world is not a mere bog in which men and women trample themselves and die. Something magnificent is taking place here amidst the cruelties and tragedies, and the supreme challenge to intelligence is that of making the noblest and best in our curious heritage prevail.” — C.A. Beard

******************************************

If you’d like to send a Letter or make a phone call to to Barbara Grieg, here is her contact info:

Barbara GriegUS Central Authority, US Department of State2201 C Street, N.W. SA-29, 4th FloorWASHINGTON, DC 20520-2818United States of AmericaDirect Tel: 202-736-9142 Email: greigbj@state.gov

Hello All,

    Please email this far and wide across the nation asap.

    For months on debates, Senator McCain has been saying he will secure the borders and has been deliberately refusing to call out his plan after that.

    Everyone says he has learned his lesson and has changed on amnesty.  NOT SO! 

 I personally saw and heard him on Larry King Live yesterday.  Larry King pushed.  McCain mouthed the same ‘secure our borders first’ line.  Larry King pushed and pushed and insisted he say what he would do about illegals in this country until finally McCain caved in and said:

    (This is not word for word but paraphrased EXACTLY as he said it.) [LOL –Ed.]

    He said the two million illegals here who are criminals we would send back of course, but that as for the rest, we have to be humane and compassionate, after all they are human beings.  Then he tried a guilt trip on the public saying that if for instance a woman was here illegally and her husband was serving in Iraq, of course we would not deport her.

    Friends, this is serious!!!!  We CANNOT give amnystey (sic) to tens of millions of people who have never paid one dime into social security, medicaid and medicare and then turn around and support them.  It will bankrupt the country. 

We CANNOT refuse to enforce the laws of the land, or we have anarchy…

    I am serious folks, if you are NOT concerned, I highly recommend you become concerned… If you go and vote for McCain because he has fooled you on this issue, or because Romney tells you to, then don’t complain when the house of cards comes falling down. 

    The same with your Legislative or County Conventions.  Support people to the State convention who will elect delegates to the National Convention who believe that we should start enforcing the laws.

    McCain has NOT won the nomination. The national media is showing you

smoke and mirrors counts…

    Vote tomorrow and at your conventions for America and Republican

Principles, not chaos, anarchy, selective thumbing of the nose at the laws of the land and compromise of our national security… 

By the way – McCain says he’s for national security but he wants to keep a bunch of illegal people here?  How does he know how many are terrorists? 

Think about it.

Ruth Gibbs

206-947-4648

regpc3@aol.com

Recent news highlights the inroads the Gay Rights Movement has made in the Republican Party.

MEDIA ADVISORY, June 19 /CNW/ — World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Larry Jacobs expressed “grave concern” over a recent resolution passed by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) condemning perceived human rights violations based on so-called sexual orientation and gender identity.

The “Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” (enacted at a June 3 session in Colombia) was sponsored by Brazil, whose president, Luis Lula, has stated publicly that he wants to criminalize dissent from the gay agenda (which he terms “homophobia”) and legalize gay marriage.

According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input.

The nebulous resolution speaks of member states taking unspecified steps to end “violence and discrimination” based on sexual orientation and “gender-identity” (men who think they’re women and vice versa).

Jacobs asked: “Does anti-gay discrimination include laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman or limiting adoption to families with mothers and fathers? Would it require schools to affirm homosexuality and the other unhealthy perversions? Could it lead to ‘hate crimes laws’ and speech codes that criminalize dissent?”

Jacobs added: “Once again, a political institution has been co-opted by the international homosexual movement. Once again, a transnational organization has chosen to enlist with one side in the culture war, to the manifest displeasure of majorities in the nations they represent. Latin cultures, in particular, are noted for their traditional, pro-family orientation.”

World Congress of Families recently garnered the support of 110 pro-family leaders from 23 countries for a petition in support of Romania’s pending move to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

For more information on World Congress of Families, go to www.worldcongress.org.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) is an international network of pro-family organizations, scholars, leaders and people of goodwill from more than 60 countries that seeks to restore the natural family as the fundamental social unit and the ‘seedbed’ of civil society. The WCF was founded in 1997 by Allan Carlson and is a project of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois (www.profam.org). To date, there have been four World Congresses of Families – Prague (1997), Geneva (1999), Mexico City (2004) and Warsaw, Poland (2007).

The Gay Rights King County Republican Party

In 2006 Lori Sotelo, then chair of the King County Platform Committee (Now chair of the KCGOP) led the fight to prevent the adoption for the King County Platform of the Natural Family Plank pioneered by the World Congres of Families, calling it “ANTI-GAY.” Then County Chair, Michael Young, entering debate though not a Committee member, argued long and articulately against it as well. Obviously holding forth on behalf of the Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and Transgendered “community” Young said we needn’t unduly alienate a group that might support us. Many of his appointments as Chair had been gay rights advocates and/or associated with Log Cabin Republicans.

You be the judge. Is the following “offensive” as Young and Sotelo claimed? :

The Natural Family

      ·         We affirm that the natural family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society.

·         We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.

·         We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one ingrained in human nature. Distinct family systems may grow weaker or stronger. However, the natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.

·         We affirm that the natural family is the ideal, optimal, true family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations caused by circumstance or dysfunction, all other “family forms” are incomplete or are fabrications of the state.

·         We affirm the marital union to be the authentic sexual bond, the only one open to the natural and responsible creation of new life.

·         We affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; each newly conceived person holds rights to live, to grow, to be born, and to share a home with its natural parents bound by marriage.

·         We affirm that the natural family is prior to the state and that legitimate governments exist to shelter and encourage the natural family.

The question that comes immediately to mind, of course, is: V P running mate for Obama? or for McCain?

Our half-Republican friends (yes, we are optimists and the glass is half full) over at Sound Politics have inadvertently created the perfect environment to grow a species of internet spores; an organic structure whose purpose is the reproduction of rhetoric that can survive for extended periods of time in conditions unfavorable to them (like the Republican Party), multiplying rapidly until they maximize an existing habitat.