Home > Prop 8 Trial, Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage > Prop 8 Will Be Back in Court Monday Morning (June 13, 2011)

Prop 8 Will Be Back in Court Monday Morning (June 13, 2011)

June 12th, 2011

Proposition 8′s sponsors will be in court Monday morning to argue whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be vacated on the basis that the long term same-sex relationship he is involved in (and was involved in at the time of the Prop 8 trial, but failed to disclose) constitutes a conflict of interest.

If you want to follow the hearing, and don’t mind going to the website of one of Prop 8′s opponents to do so, then you can find live updates at http://www.afer.org/june13 starting at 9:00am.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Sean
    June 13th, 2011 at 17:08 | #1

    Why would someone mind going to a Prop 8 opponent’s website? Afraid they might learn something?

  2. June 14th, 2011 at 07:26 | #2

    And should the long-term being-a-woman thing prevent female judges from hearing gender-based discrimination cases? Or do we at some point decide to trust in our judges’ abilities as judges to be impartial and determine cases on the facts as presented at trial?

  3. June 14th, 2011 at 07:30 | #3

    Dahlia Lithwick’s article on this is worth reading: http://www.slate.com/id/2296862/

  4. John Noe
    June 14th, 2011 at 16:52 | #4

    Judge Walker decision on Prop8 needs to be thrown out because he proved he is unworthy to be a judge to decide this. The case is a no brainer. The tenth amendment of the Constitution recognizes states rights and the rights of their citizens to make states laws. Prop8 was also no ordinary vote, it was a vote of the people to amend their state constitution.
    This judge proved how unworthy he was by becoming the first judge to rule that it is unconstitutional for the people of California to amend their own constitution.
    Did anyone watch the GOP debate for President and notice the lies and double standard of the SSM advoctes. They asked the candidates for President if they would respect the states right of New Hampshire to have SSM. They claim a federal amendment of man/woman marriage violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution by infringing on states rights. Yet these same SSM advocates want the courts to violate the states rights by imposing SSM from the bench.

  5. June 14th, 2011 at 18:07 | #5
  6. Bob Barnes
    June 15th, 2011 at 07:14 | #6

    John Noe :

    This judge proved how unworthy he was by becoming the first judge to rule that it is unconstitutional for the people of California to amend their own constitution.

    Ummm, no. Not true, Proposition 14 was overturned by the courts. Care to guess why? Even the will of the people needs to be put in check.

  7. John Noe
    June 15th, 2011 at 15:11 | #7

    The will of the people never needs to be put in check when it comes to amending their own constitution. It is constitutional for the people to amend their own constitution which is exactly what Prop8 was. This federal judge also violated the Bill of Rights and the 10th amendment that deals with states rights.
    Just say the GPO debate on CNN the other night. The SSM advocates were employing the old double standard argument. They were opposed to a federal amendment making marriage a man/woman because it violated states rights. The candidates were asked if they would honor New Hampshires states rights.
    Notice how the SSM advocates though want the Feds to violate the 10th amendment and states rights by having a federal court impose SSM on the country.

  8. Sean
    June 15th, 2011 at 17:53 | #8

    The will of the people is to honor the US Constitution. That’s why Prop 8 is going away in California.

    Decent people want equality imposed on the country; same-sex marriage just happens to be the specific issue.

  9. June 15th, 2011 at 20:54 | #9

    @John Noe

    It is not constitutional for “the people” to amend the constitution in order to take away the rights of some of the people. According to what you wrote, brown-eyed people (who outnumber the blue-eyed people) could vote to amend the constitution in order to prevent blue-eyed people from marrying each other. Just because there are more of them. Or at least more of them who vote. Are you SURE that’s what you believe? Majority ALWAYS wins?

  10. Bob Barnes
    June 16th, 2011 at 10:33 | #10

    John Noe :
    The will of the people never needs to be put in check when it comes to amending their own constitution.

    Wow, John. So you think writing racism into the the California Constitution is ok? Well, why am I surprised?

  11. Ruth
    June 16th, 2011 at 21:41 | #11

    “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    John Adams

  12. Betsy
    June 16th, 2011 at 22:26 | #12

    Can we say, “Rolling over in his grave”?

  13. Ruth
    June 17th, 2011 at 00:18 | #13

    It’s time …
    http://www.call2fall.com/

  14. Leland
    June 17th, 2011 at 16:26 | #14

    The original case brought by Olsen and Boies, Walker’s decision in that case, and Ware’s decision in this case, all could only make sense to those who’s minds are completely blinded by political correctness and the notion that homosexuals need to be accorded special legal considerations that the rest of us are just supposed to be able to do without. That mindset reveals itself in the kind of special pleading being made on behalf of the plaintiffs by the so-called ‘jurists’ in these cases.

    Judge Ware asserted during arguments that recusal was unnecessary because there was no evidence that Walker actually intended to ever marry his partner.

    But let’s take this case out of a same-sex ‘marriage’ context and see how that kind of reasoning works:

    If this were a case over whether a freeway should be allowed to be built through a particular property, and a close relative (or sexual partner) of the presiding judge owned a small farm along the route which stood to gain significantly in value if the freeway was in fact built, nobody would assert that in order to compel that judge to recuse himself you would first need to show that his relative actually intended profit by selling his farm after the highway was constructed. The mere appearance of a potential conflict of interest would warrant a recusal. (At least that’s the standard judges used to hold themselves to.)

    But I guess if Vaughn Walker was that presiding judge and his partner owned the small farm that would be different. As practicing homosexuals they’re entitled to special consideration.

  15. John Noe
    June 17th, 2011 at 19:50 | #15

    The Barnes guy and Emma person along with Sean always play the race card and use the red herrings to distract from the real legal issue.
    (1) As a US citizen living in any US state you have a state constitution fully authorized and enpowered by the citizens. One of your most basic and fundamental rights and liberties is the right to amend any such constitution. When you vote to amend your constitution you are exercising your most basic civil right. No judge has the power to deny you the fundamental right of the citizens of the country of the will of the people in making and shaping their constitution.
    (2) The tenth amendment is about states rights. The states are the ones who do the marriage license and have a state constitution. A state right that is so strong, it is why a federal amendment making male/female marriage a federal amendment unconstitutional. The opposite is just as true. If a state makes marriage between a man and a woman then the federal government cannot infringe on the rights of a state and its citizens.
    Again no federal court has the right to interfere with this. All the phony arguments that Barnes, Emma, and Sean make does not change this fact.
    (3) The Massachusetts Supreme Court which imposed homosexual marriage on the state even ruled that it was constitutional to vote on marriage and that the citizens had the right to define marriage. The ultimalte double standard: The homosexual lobbyists want the actual courts that ruled in their favor to be overuled by the feds in order to suit their agenda.

  16. June 18th, 2011 at 05:09 | #16

    @John Noe

    “The Barnes guy and Emma person”? Seriously?

  17. June 18th, 2011 at 05:42 | #17

    Hey John,

    Lemme give you another hint about Sean’s constitution.

    It seems to only protect and promote gays, at everyone else’s expense. Everywhere Sean reads protection for gays in his constitution, but then other people either don’t exist, or are denied any right by the constitution to do anything but promote homosexuality.

    Sure, ask him about siblings, are they protected with the same demand to alter marriage law for them? Even if they are in a non-sexual committed relationship where they are looking after one of their kids and can be shown to benefit, they just aren’t in his constitution. Their identity doesn’t exist. Same with polygamists, etc…

    You’ve correctly identified that Sean’s constitution is his own creation, and any resemblance to the real constitution of the USA is purely imagined.

    The 14th amendment was already reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of same-sex marriage, and they found it so obvious that it didn’t demand marriage to be neutered that they said there wasn’t even a question about it [Baker v Nelson].

    I just think it is important to continue to hold Sean and others accountable for thinking and reasoning similar to the famous fallacy in Alice in Wonderland. There the judge finds whatever verdict he wants by labeling what he thinks is important and unimportant. Sean does the same thing by saying who — or rather what identity — he thinks is important, and which one he thinks is unimportant, and then reads into the constitution a whole list of fealty that others have to give to the important identities, including as you point out the inability to have any say in the government whatsoever.

  18. June 18th, 2011 at 08:41 | #18

    The tenth amendment is really more about state responsibilties than state rights. That part about “reserved for the states and the people” meant, they gotta take care of things the federal government doesn’t. But the only things prohibited to the federal government are stated in Section 9, the Limits on Congress. It was expected that Congress would pass general laws for the general welfare. Many specific responsibilities were assigned to the Federal government in Section 8, but nothing in the Constitution, not even the 10th Amendment, limits the Federal government to those things alone. In fact the Constitution itself calls for the Legislature to enact general laws setting the manner of entering into and the effect of state acts, records, and court procedings, which certainly means marriage. The idea of the Full Faith and Credit clause is that states “ought” to recognize each others marriages and legal decisions. It doesn’t obligate states to honor each others marriages, nor does it say that states don’t need to honor each others marriages, what it says is that Congress is supposed to resolve conflicts like this by general laws so that states can recognize each others acts and decisions. It means Congress should by general law set the effect of marriage (approving of conception of children) and the manner of proving such an effect (be legally and publicly a man and a woman, not siblings or close relatives, not children, not married to anyone else) so that all states are able to recognize each others marriages. (I think states could still further limit the list to exclude first cousins, though I think it would have to recognize first cousin marriages from other states).

    You are right no federal court has the right to do this. According to the Constitution, it is the job of the legislature, Congress, to do it.

  19. Sean
    June 18th, 2011 at 12:00 | #19

    “the notion that homosexuals need to be accorded special legal considerations that the rest of us are just supposed to be able to do without”

    Excuse me, it’s the straight people that are being given special privileges, not the gay people. The gay people, and now, most Americans, believe that if we’re going to privileges straight people, we must equally privilege gay people.

    “The mere appearance of a potential conflict of interest would warrant a recusal.”

    The appearance of a conflict exists only among those who are obsessed with stopping same-sex marriage. Walker would have been exactly the same person he is now, and if he had rendered a different ruling, you would have had no problem with his sexual orientation or his relationship status. Oh, and waiting until a verdict is rendered is a little late in the game to be deciding that, well, you think he’s biased.

    “along with Sean always play the race card and use the red herrings to distract from the real legal issue.”

    I often use analogies to help explain why you’re wrong, if that’s what you mean.

    “One of your most basic and fundamental rights and liberties is the right to amend any such constitution.”

    Then why do so many states have no process for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments??? In fact, crafters of constitutions, state and federal, have raised significant barriers to amending constitutions. Why would they do that if amending the constitution is such a fundamental right?

    “The tenth amendment is about states rights.”

    That’s rich. What about DOMA? Why is the federal government second-guessing or disfavoring couples whom the states say are married. Prop 8 is not about states rights, but about whether a state can infringe on the US Constitutional right of every American to equal treatment under the law. See US Constitution, 14th Amendment, as well as US Constitution, 5th Amendment (Due Process)

    “it was constitutional to vote on marriage and that the citizens had the right to define marriage.”

    Of course they can, but they can’t violate the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection in doing so.

    “Everywhere Sean reads protection for gays in his constitution, but then other people either don’t exist, or are denied any right by the constitution to do anything but promote homosexuality.”

    Actually, Sean sees US citizens, which includes gay and lesbian people, as well as heterosexuals. All are protected by the US Constitution, lacking any verbage stating otherwise.

    “You’ve correctly identified that Sean’s constitution is his own creation, and any resemblance to the real constitution of the USA is purely imagined.”

    I think Onlawn is the one with the vivid imagination! She thinks that only straight people are protected by the US Constitution, evidently. But a careful reading on that important document reveals no preferences given to straight people, or limits on the rights of gay people.

    “I just think it is important to continue to hold Sean and others accountable for thinking and reasoning similar to the famous fallacy in Alice in Wonderland.”

    Gosh, Onlawn, what do you suggest? Prison time? The stockades? After this past week, where 20 judges in federal bankruptcy court in California struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, and where another federal judge upheld a gay judge’s right to preside in court, plus an impending marriage equality vote in New York, I can see why you’re frustrated. But the law is what it is.

  20. John Noe
    June 18th, 2011 at 16:31 | #20

    Leland: Great post, you brought up new things that I never thought of. And I thought Michael E. on NOM had all the right legal answers.

    Thanks On Lawn: After a while it is simple to understand. Sean, Barnes, and Emma and the other homosexual rights activists argue a double standard. We have one constitution. The homosexuals get one special intrepretation of the constitution and then the rest of Americia gets theirs.
    For example only homosexuals who already have equallity get to not obey the law, make up their own special rights law and then call it equallity. They have the right to marry just like everybody else, they reject it and not obey it, then make up their own law and call it equallity. However only homosexuals get this equallity and intrepretation of the constitution. If someone else wants to marry well then they can just obey the laws equally like everybody else.

  21. bman
    June 19th, 2011 at 21:44 | #21

    Sean :
    The will of the people is to honor the US Constitution. That’s why Prop 8 is going away in California.

    The Constitution originally meant “Congress” could not interfere with a state’s decision regarding establishment of religion.

    “The reason the First Amendment barred the National Government from establishing a religion is because some of the individual states had their own established religions and did not want interference from the National Government.” Morality and The Constitution

    Here is an example from Massachussetts:

    CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 1780 (written by John Adams):

    ARTICLE 3. The people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to…make suitable provision…for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality…And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

    Excerpts from all the original state constitutions are at http://www.conservapedia.com/Original_State_Constitutions

  22. Sean
    June 20th, 2011 at 15:03 | #22

    “The Constitution originally meant “Congress” could not interfere with a state’s decision regarding establishment of religion.”

    That’s not what it meant at all. The Establishment Clause means that the federal government cannot make a law that supports or undermines the practice of religion. Most state constitutions also have an Establishment Clause, explaining why no state has a state religion in the US.

  23. bman
    June 20th, 2011 at 17:56 | #23

    Sean :
    bman: “The Constitution originally meant “Congress” could not interfere with a state’s decision regarding establishment of religion.”

    Sean: That’s not what it meant at all. The Establishment Clause means that the federal government cannot make a law that supports or undermines the practice of religion. Most state constitutions also have an Establishment Clause, explaining why no state has a state religion in the US.

    It says, “Congress,” but whether you call it “Congress” or “the federal government,” it would have meant “the States” were free to establish religion as each saw fit.

    Most state constitutions also have an Establishment Clause, explaining why no state has a state religion in the US.

    They do now, but we are talking about the original intent of the US Constitution.

    Originally, the states made Christianity the official state religion.

    Besides, if the US Constitution had meant “the states” could not establish religion, they would have had to change their constitutions before they ratified the US Constitution.

    But since it did not limit the states they were free to ratify it withotu changing their state constitution first.

    You can read the excerpts from the original state constitutions at http://www.conservapedia.com/Original_State_Constitutions

  24. bman
    June 20th, 2011 at 22:35 | #24

    Here is a list of the original colonies with the date each ratified the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment followed by excerpts on religion from their state constitution or charter.

    The list strongly proves the 1st Amendment was meant to limit Congress ( the federal government) from imposing national religion on the states, while allowing the states to establish the religion of its people.

    The first amendment reads:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Its about the states telling “Congress” what it cannot do.

    This list was compiled from three main resources:

    Religion in the Original 13 Colonies
    Ratification Dates and Votes – The U.S. Constituion
    Ratification of Constitutional Amendments

    State Constitutions when US Constitution Was Ratified

    Delaware:
    Ratified US Constitution: December 7, 1787
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Jan 28, 1790
    StateConstitution 1776: “Article 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall take the following oath:
    I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’

    Article 29. There shall be no establishment of any religious sect in this State in preference to another; and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this state, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.”

    Pennsylvania
    Ratified US Constitution: December 12, 1787
    Ratiifed 1st Amendment” Mar 10, 1790
    StateConstitution 1776:
    Section 10… shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take… the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.’
    And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.”

    New Jersey
    Ratified US Constitution: December 18, 1787
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Nov 20, 1789
    State Constitution 1776:
    XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.”

    GEORGIA
    Ratified US Constitution: January 2, 1788
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Mar 18, 1939
    State Constitution 1777:
    Article VI. [R]epresentatives… shall be of the Protestant religion…

    Article LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession.

    Connecticut
    Ratified US Constitution: January 9, 1788:
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Apr 19, 1939
    Colony Charter 1662:
    [O]ur said people, Inhabitants there, may bee soe religiously, peaceably and civilly Governed as their good life and orderly Conversacon may wynn and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our Royall intencons and the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon

    State Constitution 1818:
    “Article I. Section 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this State, provided that the right hereby declared and established shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State.

    Article I. Section 4. No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship.

    Article VII. Section 1. It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates or their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association; but every person now belonging to such congregation, church, or religious association, shall remain a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter provided. And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner.”

    Massachusetts
    Ratified US Constitution: February 6, 1788
    Ratied 1st Amendment: Mar 2, 1939
    State Constitution 1780:

    Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments. provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

    Article III. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

    Chapter VI. Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

    I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion…’”

    Maryland
    Ratified US Constitution: April 28, 1788:
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Dec 19, 1789
    State Constitution 1776:
    Article XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, globes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever…

    Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

    South Carolina
    Ratified US Constitution: May 23, 1788
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Jan 19, 1790
    State Constitution 1778:
    “Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. To accomplish this desirable purpose without injury to the religious property of those societies of Christians which are by law already incorporated for the purpose of religious worship, and to put it fully into the power of every other society of Christian Protestants, either already formed or hereafter to be formed, to obtain the like incorporation, it is hereby constituted, appointed, and declared that the respective societies of the Church of England that are already formed in this State for the purpose of religious worship shall still continue Incorporate and hold the religious property now in their possession. And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves in a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted, a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the state, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement or union of men upon pretense of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:

    Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
    2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
    3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
    4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
    5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.”

    New Hampshire
    Ratified US Constitution: June 21, 1788
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Jan 25, 1790
    State Constitution 1784:
    “Article III. When men enter into a State of society they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others…

    Article IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE…

    Article V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in is person, liberty, or estate for worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.

    Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion…

    House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives… shall be of the Protestant religion…

    President. [H]e shall be of the Protestant religion.”

    VI: “As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government — the people of this State have a right – to fully impower the legislature to authorize – the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality: — And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.”

    Virginia
    Ratified US Constitution: June 25, 1788
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Dec 15, 1791
    State Constitution 1776
    Sect 16: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

    State Constitution 1786:
    Section I. The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…

    Section II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    New York
    Ratified US Constitution: July 26, 1788
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Feb 24, 1790
    Charter: 1683
    THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any wayes molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment”

    State Constitution 1777:
    Article XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and desire, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind: PROVIDED That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.

    Article XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function, therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under and preference or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this state.”
    [NY did not directly name the Christian religion in its constitution , but its court cases show Christianity was presumed. The NY Supreme court Ruggles case (1811) said, "Christianity was parcel of the law...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government."]

    North Carolina
    Ratified US Constitution: November 21, 1789
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Dec 22, 1789
    State Constitution date:1776

    Article XIX. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

    Article XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of pastoral function.

    Article XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

    Article XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any presence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, of has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: — Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment.”

    Rhode Island
    Ratified US Constitution: May 29, 1790
    Ratified 1st Amendment: Jun 7, 1790
    Charter 1663:

    That [the inhabitants], pursueing, with peaceable and loyall minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of goalie edifieing themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship, as they werepersuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor ignorant Indian natives, in thoseparts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship…

    true pietye rightly grounded upon gospell principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyaltye: Now know bee, that wee beinge willinge to encourage the hopefull undertakeinge of oure sayd lovall and loveinge subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise and enjovment of all theire civill and religious rights, appertaining to them, as our loveing subjects; and to preserve unto them that libertye, in the true Christian ffaith and worshipp of God…

    That our royall will and pleasure is, that noe person within the sayd colonye, at any tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinione in matters of religion, and doe not actually disturb the civill peace of our sayd colony; but that all and everye person and persons may, from tyme to tyme, and at all tymes hereafter, freelye and fullye have and enjoye his and theire owne judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments…and to direct, rule, order and dispose of, all other matters and things, and particularly that which relates to the makinge of purchases of the native Indians, as to them shall seeme meete; wherebv oure sayd people and inhabitants, in the sayd Plantationes, may be soe religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as that, by theire good life and orderlie conversations, they may win and invite the native Indians of the countrie to the knowledge and obedience of the onlie true God, and Saviour of mankinde…”

    State Constitution 1842:
    Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person’s religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person’s conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person’s opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any person.”

Comments are closed.