Our representative government is no more.
No, the dominos are falling thanks to the SCOTUS.
It’ll stop, but not before it gets worse. The “wax(ing) worse and worse” bit is a sign of far better things to come, take note.
Well, it won’t be appealed by the sodomite governor or AG.
Get a judge, negate a vote...we are definitely NOT a representative republic...
Pack it up and go home....but where?
Not when every such judge is an Obama appointee. He could get this in all 50 states if he wanted.
I have to say this and it pains me to, but if this is forced upon the states by the courts, I will declare our rights dead and a new era of dictatorship in effect. I won’t remain in a dictatorship. I’ll have to carefully fold my flag and constitution, and make travel plans to Armenia.
Unless there is an indication that in an impending cataclysm, we can seize power at least in the red states and outlaw liberalism and arrest these judges pending public trials for sedition.
“countrys cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love”
Love is not mentioned in the Constitution once, like abortion. This is just made up.
At this point we may as well have the SCOTUS declare the constitution is unconstitutional. As far as the courts are concerned the constitution is worse than toilet paper.
I get so sick of these Judges, I WISH that a Federal judge would try this in a state where the Governor (and the Leg) actually have b*lls to stand up and tell the Judge NO (It our Constitution; and you CANNOT OVERRULE IT)!
Unelected Judges are a big part of the failure of Federalism.
THIS is why Indiana is trying to put in in our State Constitution.
The law is already there, just needing affirmation of the voters.
From the comment sections of the news media websites in the state, you’d think that Hoosiers are 90% gay. They are scared sh!tless about this one getting to the voters.
What is all this “equal treatment” nonsense? Any man is free to marry any woman that will have him, and vice versa. I fail to see the discrimination. To say people should be able to marry whomever they love changes the definition of marriage and is silly.
Virginians put Democrats in control so this is what they get! Shame on them for neglecting centuries of sound policy.
Language is unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional to recognize that only a man can be a husband and only a woman can be a wife.
Stupidity sits in high office and issues rulings the rest must obey.
Most of the material below is from the Kentucky thread. If the DOMA information in it is correct, then these judges have the wires crossed somewhere. Either that or they are deliberately wrongly legislating pro-gay rights from the bench.
First, as indicated in the Kentucky post below, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against gay "rights" as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
From the Kentucky thread:
Under Congress's constitutional Article IV, Section 1 authority which allows Congress to legislatively determine the extent to which one state has to respect the records of another state, the significant DOMA provision which still stands is Section 2 below.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Note that Section 3 above is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. And I agree with the Supreme Court because the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. Only the states can regulate marriage. And only the states can amend the Constitution to define marriage. The problem is that the states, including low-information state lawmakers, have been asleep at the wheel concerning such issues.
Also, probably the main reason that patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges rule in favor of the pro-gay movement is the following imo. Low information-patriots evidently do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage which this judge seems to be ignoring. So the states can actually make laws which distriminate against things like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Democrfips now run Virginia. Virginians are getting what they deserve, government promoting immorality, government removing constitutional rights, government serving globalist masters with a globalist agenda. Virginai was once a great state. Gradually, fascist progressives have pushed it down into the socialist sh!tter.
1) No gay or lesbian is denied the freedom to marry, i.e. enter into a committed and exclusive union with a person of the opposite sex. Unions between those of the same sex are not marriage!
2) The Constitutions says nothing about marriage.
Mutual masturbation is not equal to procreation.
Notice the abuse of language. Marriage has always been between man and woman. How can homosexuals claim the law is not being applied equally? Have men & women been prevented from marrying?
What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.
If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.
If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits. Why stop at marriage, why not include other words? If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.
Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue to advance their agenda. Dont let them get away with it.
No thanks to all who did not vote in 2012. Obama can keep appointing more liberal judges in his 2nd term. Elections have consequences. No point is grumbling if you did not help defeat Obama.
height of hypocrisy to say “unconstitutional” as a means of expediency. the constitution is silent on the issue at best while being clear about separation of powers, respecting the votes of the people, etc. 30 state constitutions and all duly voted on disenfranchised