It has already arrived. THREE WOMEN JUST MARRIED EACH OTHER IN MASSACHUSETTS, THUS BECOMING A THROUPLE.
Posted on 08/22/2014 6:12:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even though the citizens of Florida voted in a 2008 referendum to define marriage as between one man and one woman in their state's constitution, yet another federal district judge has ruled that amendment is unconstitutional because it does not let Floridians marry someone of their same gender.
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle came to the same conclusion Thursday as judges from four other districts in Florida previously found. Hinkle ruled that labeling marriage as only "between a man and a woman" was in violation of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it does not provide a guarantee of equal protection and due process under the law.
In his reasoning, Hinkle used the frequently used argument that same-sex marriage is inevitable, or, as some same-sex marriage supporters put it, opponents are on the "wrong side of history."
"When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination," Hinkle wrote in his decision. "To paraphrase a civil rights leader from the age when interracial marriage was struck down, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed the court ruling, as she did with the other rulings in the counties of Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach and Broward. Due to the appeal, Hinkle has delayed the effect of his order. Same-sex marriages are not immediately allowed in those districts until the appeals have been ruled upon.
Opponents of gay marriage in Florida, including Bondi and Family Research Council Senior Fellow Chris Gacek, argue that the power of the Florida citizens' votes should be respected by the judicial process.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
The wrong side of WHAT history?
How about a man and 3 or4 women. Or as many as you can afford. What’s wrong with that?
Good for the FL AG.
The PA AG said she sided with the plaintiffs and refused to defend the Commonwealth.
It would appear the perversion has become some sort of “civil right”
The people speak, a liberal judge overturns. Why do we even bother with the voting process?
It saves a lot of time, because you don't have to write up a whole bunch of laws and get them passed. You know, "It's whatever."
The judge should be immediately impeached for incompetence. There is nothing in law about being on any side of history so how could this be applicable to a ruling? Obviously not qualified, competent and possibly insane.
RE: The wrong side of WHAT history?
This is a variation of the standard liberal argument. It is now the 21st century, therefore, Traditional Moral values do not apply today. This to them, is PROGRESS.
They measure morality by the calendar.
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle gives aid and comfort to the enemy and he should be indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for treason.
Homosexuality is not normal and I don’t want my government pretending otherwise. It’s simply not normal for a member of any species to behave in a manner that would lead to the extinction of the entire species of the behavior was widespread.
The judge comparing the legalization of homosexual marriage to interracial marriage is disgusting
Uh...Genesis 19, anyone?
Ancient Greece?
Wrong side of history??
The "sexual revolution" of the 60s, 70s, helped beget unprecedented numbers of abortions, STDs, AIDS deaths, and broken families.
Is that the RIGHT side of history, there, Hinkle?
Sodom and Gomorrah. The judge is with them, so I’m sure he’ll be happy to suffer the same fate.
ISIS is looking to provide the fire and brimstone.
You don't see these judges standing fast on the issue of the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment against the states and their little private real estate theft schemes (property taxes).
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
...Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
So why is it that most state governments can seize "your" property and sell it for a piddly tax lien, HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
No "just compensation" there. And judges like these turn a blind eye all day, because it's THEIR paycheck.
Hinkle can just shut up, as far as I'm concerned.
Where in the Constitution does he find that history thing?
> THREE WOMEN JUST MARRIED EACH OTHER IN MASSACHUSETTS, THUS BECOMING A THROUPLE
I saw a video one time like that. They seemed to really enjoy kissing and fondling each other. And some other stuff, too. Not sure they were actually married though.
But that’s just a detail. /s
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.