Vatican Chooses Radical Conservative as Archbishop of San Francisco

 Salvatore Cordileone, 56, Roman Catholic of the Diocese of Oakland (California), has been named Archbishop of San Francisco by Pope Benedict XVI.  He will preside over the entire Bay Area of California.

With this move, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy could not have made their church any more obsolete and out of touch if they had tried.

In a city where the gay City Supervisor (Harvey Milk) and the City Mayor (George Moscone) were assassinated, Cordileone has ranted that it is not this hate, but rather "same-sex marriage" that is "...a plot of the evil one;”

In a time when multiple state and federal district and appeals courts have emphatically ruled thqat California’s Prop 8 is Unconstitutional...Cordileone takes pride in being one of the prime organizers to pass Prop 8 in the first place, in an effort to trump constitutional law with church canon law;

In a state that is widely viewed as one of the most progressive in the nation, Cordileone has called for a return to the Roman Catholic liturgies used in 1950.  At the annual meeting of the U.S. bishops in Baltimore in November, 2006 (just 6 years ago!),  he proposed to the group that the use of contraception be considered a ‘grave matter’ under church canon law (to their credit, they refused his request.)

In the city with the largest percentage of gays in America (15%), Cordileone claims a deep understanding of the  people in one breath, while calling the people of the Bay Area “radical” in the next;

And in the city named after Saint Francis of Assisi, the 12^th Century monk known for his vows of poverty and lifelong efforts to remove himself from power centers within the church... Cordileone successfully pursued his position with the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signora, the Vatican’s version of the Supreme Court, and highest body operating directly under Pope Benedict himself.

 The Vatican has chosen the man who might well be considered the single most combative conservative in the American Roman Catholic Church to provide pastoral oversight to the nation’s most liberal, forward-thinking, progressive cities.  It has chosen someone who spent countless hours sticking his thumb in the eyes of same-sex couples seeking marriage equality, and using his position to spread division and hate rather than peace, love and reconciliation.

It has chosen to declare a pointless war on the unforgiving, unrelenting tide of history itself.  And it will lose the battle with the sea changes in the generations ahead.

.

Prop 8 Ruling: Conservatives have standing to sue, case proceeds to 9th Circuit Court

The California Supreme Court has ruled that “Protect Marriage,” a conservative citizens group, has the legal right to defend California’s Proposition 8 in court. This means that the controversial ballot question, which banned same-sex marriage in California, will now be heard by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The State of California had recognized same-sex marriage, but conservative citizens petitioned to have the issue put before voters. The ballot question, called “Prop 8,” was approved, which then ended same-sex marriage in California. Gay rights groups appealed the ballot initiative, and a Federal Court Judge declared that Prop 8 was Unconstitutional. In that suit, the “defendant” was the State of California, since it was the State that was defending its own laws in federal court. When the State lost, it chose not to appeal the decision, which would have normally meant the end of Prop 8 and a re-recognition of same-sex marriage.

However, conservative citizen groups were outraged that the State was not defending its law on appeal, and stepped in and filed an appeal at the 9th Circuit Court. The Circuit Court was unclear as to whether the group had “standing to sue,’ ie, if they had the right to appeal the law.

The issue of standing is a very narrow question of deciding “who” has the right to sue in court. If Jack and Jill have a contract concerning carrying a bucket of water, and Jack refuses to carry out his part of the deal, then all courts agree that Jill has the right to sue Jack. The question in this case, however, is whether someone who is not a party to the original case can also: can Jill’s best friend Sally sue Jack because of the injury suffered by Jill, if Jill chooses not to sue…especially if Sally believes it will affect her? In essence, that is the question the court needed to decide. The Federal Court then asked the California State for guidance on this issue.

In the end, the California Supreme Court (a state court) ruled that the conservative citizens group does in fact have standing to sue, which means that the appeal will now continue at the 9th Circuit (the federal court).

It also means that the issue as to whether or not same-sex marriage is a federal Constitutional Right – or not – will probably reach U S Supreme Court level in the not-too-distant future.

Upholding Prop 8 in California: a proper decision

The California Court upheld Prop 8 today. While I don't have to like the result, I have to say that from a Legal perspective, it was proper.

This same Court once ruled that gays and lesbians could not be discriminated against in the criteria for issuing marriage licenses. They held that the California State Constitution prohibited unequal protection.

When the citizens dont like laws resulting from Constitutional interpretation, their recourse is to amend the Constitution. That is what California citizens did when they passed Proposition 8.

Opponents of Prop 8 took that vote to court. One must be clear here that the issue was NOT should gays have the right to marry: the issue was, narrowly defined, whether or not the process used in amending the California Constitution was appropriate. The Court that initally granted Marriage Equality was forced - by a 6-1 vote - to also rule that the Citizens of California were within their legal right to overturn that decision, and that they did so according to California Law.

Of course, this battle is not over..

.