Fake judge Crabb
Posted on 06/07/2014 11:11:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Wisconsin Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex couples marrying, joining federal judges across the nation to have reached a similar decision in the past six months that such bans are unconstitutional.
“I conclude that the Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause,” U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb wrote.
She held off on issuing an injunction stopping enforcement of the ban, as Crabb — appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 — asked for additional materials by June 16 relating to the injunction sought by the plaintiffs in the case.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen already has asked Crabb to stop the decision from going into effect, and Crabb told the state it can supplement that motion through June 16 if they wish to do so in light of the Supreme Court’s action earlier this week denying a stay of the order striking down Oregon’s marriage ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
The motto of the left, like that of all fascists; by any means necessary.
Why vote for reps and senators?
Habit.
And the opinion that this is discrimination based on “sexual orientation” is not legally defensible.
Why? Because “sexual orientation” is NOT a protected class under federal civil rights laws. Judges are deciding that sexual orientation “SHOULD” be a protected class. If one is not a member of a protected class, then by definition, there is no federal civil rights violation.
But, the statements I just made are based on following what our laws actually say. Since judges have decided that homosexuality should be a protected class, even though it isn’t defined as such, they are able to get away with overturning marriage laws in state after state.
Only the U.S. Supreme Court could overrule all of these lower court rulings.
But as we saw last year on the rulings on marriage, five out of nine justices overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, at least in regards to the federal government recognizing homosexual marriages from states which allow same.
It wouldn’t be a stretch for those same five to decide that there is an overall federal constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and extend said policy to all 50 states immediately.
75-Year-Old Federal Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Ban On Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages
Judgette Crabb, who is an appointee of failed American president Jimmah Carter, is at an age where dementia and Alzheimer's are quite common. Has any sort of mental defect played a part in this odd ruling, some critics wonder?
All over but the shouting.
And while I am with ya on the role of the judiciary, the polls make it clear that a majority of Americans support it and that grows daily. Tragically sad.
No protected class involved, here. The court finds that marriage is a fundamental right, and that the government cannot sustain a law against homosexual "marriage." The equal protection clause of the constitution covers all classes of people.
And just think about this: 0bama will have had eight years to appoint life-tenured federal judges by the time he leaves office. His stench will linger for decades.
Which classes of people are discriminated against under traditional marriage laws? Under current law, any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. All are treated equally at present. What class of people are discriminated against?
The judge redefined the forms of "marriage" that the state must recognize. Where it used to be that the state would recognize only a union of one man and one woman, this judge says the "one of each sex" limitation is unconstitutional, because marriage is a fundamental right. It's arbitrary line drawing (and at some point, all law is just that, although it claims to have some deeper justification for imposing its will).
Anyway, not to say that somebody can't transmogrify the decision into a "protected class / civil rights" framework. My remarks above suggest that, with the protected class being those who desire to enter into homosexual "marriage." But that ends up being a tautology, they get protected status by dint of the action they want the state to endorse. The decision doesn't turn on any sort of protected class. This judge says everybody is entitled to homosexual marriage, and everybody is entitled to heterosexual marriage.
Somebody on here posted that they won't abide by the judge's rule. The "marriages", aren't, period. I'm of the same mind, plus I find that the court is flat out illegitimate. I'm not bound to follow an irrational person's rulings.
Marriage and family are a fundamental aspect of stable society. The judge is tinkering with dynamite.
You make some good points. And you touch on the fact that judges have to change the definition of marriage in their court rulings. I may be wrong, but I think that changing the definition of a legal term, as happens in homosexual marriage court cases, may be unprecedented.
Liberals compare the movement for homosexual marriage to former bans on interracial marriage, and against the old Jim Crow laws. But in court cases and legislation dealing with those forms of discrimination, judges didn’t change the definition of a legal term.
The definition of the right to vote, of the right to be served in public accomodation, the definition of marriage as man and woman, or the rights to own property in spite of racial covenants banning ownership by certain people, did not change with laws and court cases banning discrimination in those areas.
Fake judge Crabb
Our nation was founded as one of laws and protection of liberty, not on majority rule per se. Defeatism is not a proper attitude.
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.