Federal Judge Uses 'Wrong Side of History' Argument in Striking Down Florida Marriage Law

Christian Post ^ | 08/22/2014 | Samuel Smith

[kaehurowing]

I don’t remember learning in law school that “the wrong side of history” was any sort of standard of review or test by which you could determine the legality of a statute.

[Amendment10]

"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."

As questioned in related threads, where did these misguided activist judges go to law school? (I don't really want to know.)

Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, officially clarify in the congressional record that the 14th Amendment applies only those privileges and immunities amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the 14th Amendment added no new personal rights to the Constitution.

• “Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

• “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues like gay marriage, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.

[Delta Dawn]

As I have posted before on this forum, using this line of reasoning, there is NO type of behavior that can be found to be illegal.

Actually, the judge is incorrect. All gay people still have the ability to get married. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry, just like everyone else...

[virgil]

Truth to power.

[ViLaLuz]

Well, who is on the wrong side of eternity?

[lastchance]

“wrong side of history.”

That is what passes for legal argument? What a joke.

[Phillyred]

Gee silly me I thought you were supposed to determine either the wrong or right side of the constitution!!!!

[Monorprise]

Yea it is paculraur that someone would reference history of all things while advocating a sinful self-destructive practice that by nature has no future.

[Monorprise]

Federal employees in black robes have long sense given up any pretense of the written law as being even relevant in their cases. Instead its their own edicts that they subside for a foundation which they then ignore whenever necessary to support their ideological conclusions.

Not that we have any evidence that this federal employee has any idea how to read but the 14th amendment says very little, and nothing whatsoever on the subject of marriage.

[sten]

which side of the history is Sodom on again?

[Pollster1]

And when national socialism is making gains, will a judge decide their victory is inevitable and resistance is on the “wrong side of history”?

I miss the rule of law, the good old days when judges were supposed to decide cases based on written law and the written Constitution, not just a current fad.