I seem to recall another guy who thought the same way...
Posted on 06/26/2013 10:34:30 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
In a victory for sexual perverts in States where it is legal for deviants to be married, The Supreme Court of the United States has spit in the face of Almighty God and every true Christian in this country, and ignored thousands of years of human history in which homosexual ACTS have been tolerated by some, but never have they allowed to marry on a de facto or de jure basis, by striking down the provisions of DOMA that deny sexual deviants the same Federal benefits of marriage.
The Court reasoned that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage benefits to some married couples but allow them for others. On a strictly legal platform, this is not surprising, and frankly was expected. In effect, they are leaving it to the States to decide. States that do not recognize pervert marriages still are not required to do so, and do not have to provide State benefits to same-sex couples, nor recognize same sex marriages of couples who move to their States married in one that permits it, but are merely saying that the Federal government may not give to one group what it does not give to another.
The error in this reasoning is that homosexuals are not a federally recognized protected class, yet the majority court seems to have ignored this axiom. The really disturbing part of this ruling on Doma is that it opens the door for States to permit incestuous, polygamous, and incestuous polygamous marriages; equal rights for all means ALL, right? It appears that the Court did not think this through to its logical conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
If 52% of California vote to protect traditional marriage, that’s overwhelming. They are one of the farthest left states, and it wasn’t close. That means 65-35 in most states.
I agree. There are federal issues involved and it did keep it in the states. We also know Obama and the permanent bureaucracy will abuse this new power.
What we saw was sort of the social version of the interstate commence clause. I am not thrilled with DOMA being overturned, but the law had it's major flaws, and if one looks at the Constitution, it does not give the Federal government power to play a role in marriage. Of course, the court only seems to recognize federal limitations on powers on one side of the aisle. They have allowed the government endless power everywhere else. It's a loss, but not unexpected.
“one looks at the Constitution, it does not give the Federal government power to play a role in marriage”
This is false.
Reynolds vs the US states very clearly that one man one woman has always been the law of the land in the US and that the federal government must have a consistant definition. Same principle behind Lincolns, “a house divided”.
There cannot be two laws, one saying slaves are a person, and one saying slaves are not a person. It is the same with the definition of marriage. If there are two laws, then there can be three. Sharia.
I used to hold your position until I read the Reynolds decision. As far as I know I’ve not ran into anyone else who’s actually read the decision and understood why it is crucial to this issue.
I have an article published last may talking about this precise issue. I predicted DOMA would get struck down due to faulty constitutional understanding. I maintain that now.
Short of a total economic collapse (probability <1% in the next 20yr), there will be no revolt at all.
Local, State and Federal governments are abusing us daily with their sadistic bureaucrats.
History has shown that people will have to put up with very much more before blow-back happens.
I think the Powers That Be are carefully managing the decline of the U.S. into a third world sewer.
I cannot cite in history where an economic superpower has "legislated" its way back to Liberty. Never happened.
Only through some cataclysmic event can the opportunity present itself that will allow States to move to dissolve the Federal leviathan.
What State leaders have the Warrior mindset? None.
I’m a little faulty on the constitution. Could you please quote the part where the feds have any authority over marriage.
Not the court case, the actual constitution.
Thanx.
English common law contains the fundamental principles that the Constitution is based upon, and were the laws in the colonies prior to the establishment of the Constitution.
Part of the English common law is the definition of marriage.
Again, read Reynolds. It’s all there and the Supreme Court lays is all out for you.
I understand your sentiments. If we have citizens with the love of Liberty as expressed by our Founders, then it would be feasible to do it proactively.
The only way that Liberty and very limited government can exist again in this Republic is for some cataclysmic event occurs which compels States to act and dissolve ALL unconstitutional parts of the Federal Leviathan.
This will have to entail firing large numbers of Federal bureaucrats, revoking their pensions.
Also, all courts below the S.C. would need to be dissolved and reconstituted without Statists.
States would have to move quickly to repeal the 16 and 17 Amendments as a first step.
Elect me governor of any Red state. I would push FedGov™ so far, raise such a ruckus, that the USA would kick us out!
Which chapter of the US Constitution covers that and please avoid references outside of the wording of the constitution or specific interpretations if the wording by someone who had the authority to do so.
BTW British common law said if someone killed your mule or horse, you could compensate for two pigs. Did I miss that in the constitution?
didn’t you try that last time? ;)
Not going with a court case. Asking for the wording in the constitution which authorizes the federal government to do anything with marriage.
Just BELIEVE in Him!
No, it will come, not today, not tomorrow, but it will come. Keep a close eye on the massive gun sales.
Yes, there have been.
From the government:
Literally — Randy Weaver and David Koresh.
Figuratively — Fast & Furious, IRS, NSA.
At the government: Joseph Stack, Suspicious Packages
A large country like this will break up, either peaceful or violent and go its own way along red states/blue states.
Mea culpa.
I haven’t seen any opinions yet, and now that I’ve had time to better read the article referenced in OP, the Supreme Court didn’t do its job to protect state sovereignty from pro-gay activist state dudges. So California’s legal majority voters were wrongly ignored.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (emphasis added). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.In fact, one Supreme Court case where a private citizen sued a state is Minor v. Happersett.
I seem to recall another guy who thought the same way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.