Thursday, June 26, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: Judge will issue ruling on constitutionality of the Virginia Division Statute 57-9 on Friday, June 27

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! Talk about a bombshell out of nowhere!
Praying starts right now!!
Intercessor

Pageantmaster said...

Prayers for you all at this time.
Micah 5:4

TLF+ said...

Praying!

Anonymous said...

After SCOTUS just struck down the D.C. gun ban today , maybe the Virginia judge will even things out tomorrow by upholding the Division Statute

Annie said...

Based on the late Thursday night delivery of his April ruling, I am going to find it hard to go back to sleep tonight. I'll just pray instead.

Anonymous said...

Since Judge Bellows stated that he would have this decision at the end of June, it is no surprise. I was not surprised at his ruling based on the very narrow view of 57-9 and its applicability. But I think the constitutional concerns are a different matter. First, whether the investigation alone constituted an unwarranted intrusion into church governance and doctrine. and Second, whether Virginia's law provided for one and only one manner of property distribution the event of "division" imposing a preference for congregational governance over any other, Third, whether it is the province of the civil authority to determine when a "division" has taken place and Fourth, whether the matter of trusts in favor of a denomination expressed or implied can be legislated by a state.

In any event, should the Anglican District/CANA congregations prevail here, on the appeal, will the record be closed or open to allow for further developments, e.g. GAFCON indicating no division in the communion. Am listening for con. lawyers to chime in? EmilyH

Katherine said...

I thought the judge had already ruled that a division has occurred. If he rules the law is constitutional, then the Diocese loses, and it goes on appeal. This is based on the understanding that the ADV churches were very careful to comply with all the requirements of the division law.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the judge has so ruled. But his ruling was based on the assumption that 57-9 is constitutional. Now he is addressing the question of whether it is constitutional. I am assuming that there are both state and federal issues involved, the 14th amendment requiring that state law is subject to federal law? EmilyH