Posted on 07/09/2014 9:12:23 PM PDT by Steelfish
Judge Rules Colorado's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional District judge C Scott Crabtree rules 2006 voter approved ban violates state and federal constitutions
A judge in Colorado has struck down the state's gay marriage ban.
District court judge C Scott Crabtree on Wednesday ruled the 2006 voter-approved ban violates the state and federal constitutions. He immediately put his ruling on hold pending an appeal.
Crabtree is the 16th judge to void a state's gay marriage ban since the US supreme court ruled last year that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages in the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
They’re queer. They’re here. And they’re telling us to get used to it.
I’m retired now but I’ve been to a lot of company Christmas parties where there was dancing. I wonder how it’s going to go over when guys start slowing dancing at the parties. The company will be sued if they prevent it. What will happen is there will be no more company parties. A very small percentage of the population, supported by idiots, is forcing the rest to change. I’m sick of it.
Can’t the Supreme Court take this on?
Tenth Amendment. This fake judge is out of line.
The fags are on a roll. “Unexpected?” Nope.
Where are the conservative judges to start legislating from the bench?
They did. They ruled that the DOMA act was unconstitutional.
What they did not settle was the precidence of the 10th Amendment over the 14th Ammendment. As it stands, the current judges are favoring the 14th over the 10th
>> there will be no more company parties.
Yup.
The bitches driving this agenda just don’t get it.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regardless what activist judges and the corrupt media, which evidently includes the Guardian (UK), wants everybody to think about the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor last year, although the Court struck down DOMA's Section 3, the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2 exposes the media's lies about what the Supreme Court actually decided concerning the constitutionality of gay marriage.
DOMA :
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.
One possible remedy for patriots to stop activist judges from legislating special interest rights from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following in every case which deals with the Constitution. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which justify their case decisions to the satisfaction of voters. And judges who fail to do so should be minimally permanently removed from the bench, possibly serving some jail time.
Also, with the exception of the federal entities indicated by the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, judges should also be required to declare that the Constitution's silence about particular issue means that it is a 10th Amendment-protected intrastate power issue.
I think that the Constitution will need to be amended to likewise require justices to justify their decisions with references to specific constitutional clauses.
Unfortunately the solution you propose won’t work. It violates state separation of powers in state constitutions. Legislators cannot interfere with how judges write or reason their decisions.
Thank you for that insight. I don't know how many state constitutions have such provisions, but since state judges undoubtedly swear to protect and defend state constitutions as well as the federal Constitution, state constitutions need to be amended to accommodate such laws to hold judges accountable to their oaths.
After all, the states have never amended the federal Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights like gay marriage as the judge mentioned in this thread has wrongly asserted.
“the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2”
Don’t be fooled by the Court’s decision. It did not affirmatively “let stand Section 2” — Section 2 was simply not at issue in the case. I think the current Court would toss Section 2 in a second, if it was presented with an opportunity to do so.
To be fair, it was: nothing in the Constitution delegates to the federal government the power to define marriage, and the 10th would indicate that as such it is up to the States, or the people [thereof].
What they did not settle was the precidence of the 10th Amendment over the 14th Ammendment. As it stands, the current judges are favoring the 14th over the 10th
To be perfectly fair: that's the way it should be — later amendments can kill earlier ones (if not, then Amd 18 and 21 have some explaining to do).
However, that said, nothing in the 14th amendment would constrain the States to accept homosexual-marriage: only that the definition of marriage cannot be dependent upon the people involved. For example, if I had an unmarried homosexual brother he could [legally] marry exactly all the women that I could [legally] marry: all unmarried women, not of close relation, over the marrying age. IOW, his sexual preference have no impact on whom he may marry, and therefore such rules are not violative of the 14th Amendment.
See, they're trying to pull a fast one and conflate the groups of whom you want to have sex with and whom you can marry, implying that some restriction by law on the former is the same as restriction on the latter.
Crabtree? That’s a surprise. I assumed it would be Judge Oliver Fagworthy.
Loon logic: It’s Unconstitutional to be constitutional.
Justice Kennedy, look what you have wrought.
Judges have no power to make laws, Governors should just say “We do not care what you ruled, we make our own laws”
You are correct. The issues of Marriage is NOT an enumerated power however there is the “full faith and credit” clause.
Ummm... is there anything in the Constitution about sex? Regular or perverted?
If not, how can a law about it be un-constitutional?
I’ve been wondering for some time now why we the people even vote. Why do we the people spend so much time and money electing our representatives only to over ruled by some black robed demigod with his/her own agenda. Now some might say that is because we are nation of laws, well in light of what has been happening lately I would ask just what laws, those enacted or those ruled on by demigods that ignore the those laws. Corruption is corruption no matter how it is ruled. And, it just occurred to me, the word RULED isn’t that a term to used by dictators.
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.