Posted on 09/04/2014 12:54:37 PM PDT by John W
INDIANAPOLIS - The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a lightning-fast ruling finding Indiana's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.
It came just nine days after the Indiana and Wisconsin cases were argued before the three-judge panel.
"The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction - that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended - is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously," the ruling said.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalgazette.net ...
In what line in the Constitution does it say that men can marry men and women marry women?
The Constitution says.... WHATEVER ERIC HOLDER SAYS IT SAYS..
The Supremes are just some black chicks..
So much for Christian teaching and the wisdom of all of recorded history in every known civilization.
“The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an ‘immutable’ characteristic...”. It’s a choice, not an immutable characteristic. I guess if you tell a lie enough times, people will eventually believe it to be the truth....
Why do we even pretend that we live in a democracy anymore?
Sue the court. Replace the judge. Stop judicial activism.
The above news is in opposition to this one:
Federal judge upholds La. same-sex marriage ban
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200079/posts
So, one judge rules one way and another judge rules the other.
Whose ruling takes precedence?
So the will of the people to define marriage no longer applies?
Only the will of judges?
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a persons choice to be a pervert. Next comes multiple marriages and then comes child brides. We must put a stop to our courts CHANGING the Constitution and destroying our Nation.
“”The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction - that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended - is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously,” the ruling said.”
The only holes in that argument are the holes in secular liberal logic and there are no holes in Biblical Truth.
There are ZERO states where homosexuals are forbidden to marry.
Homosexuals have identical rights as heterosexuals in marriage and marriage prohibitions.
The judge does not understand discrimination, or licensing, or contracts. Or marriage.
Noting that Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) is being used as the excuse to declare state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, please consider the following. Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, clarify in the congressional record that 14A applies only express protections amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court had essentially clarified the same thing about three years after Bingham's clarification.
“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 [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "righs," 14A has no constitutionally enumerated rights to apply to the states to protect gay agenda issues. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay "rights" issues, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to believe about the Supreme Court deciding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo 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.
Note that DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Clause 1 of Article IV, which gives Congress the power to decide the effect of one state's records in the other states.
There is no phrase or directly quoted clause in the Constitution or anywhere in the statutes written before 1990 that remotely offers any kind of precedent or context for the interpretation that gay “marriage” was legal or recognized anywhere in the territory once known as “the United States of America”. The penumbral study of the Constitution that yielded this conclusion, that such rights should exist, is only the effect of insufficient illumination, and it is like finding evil spirits lurking just outside the range of vision. When it is put up to a direct vote by the citizens, as an initiative, referendum, or even as a recall, the concept of homosexual “marriage” is rejected, sometimes by a very substantial margin. Yet there seems to be this continuing influence to force this perversion upon the general public. I ask, is this being done only because the movers and shakers think they can compel just about ANY kind of otherwise disagreeable opinion to prevail in the general marketplace?
“So, one judge rules one way and another judge rules the other.”
Judge Feldman’s ruling in the Louisiana case is the case that we must look to and what every judge that hears gay marriage cases must look to for precedence.
I think all things will eventually come to a head and it will end in the Supreme Court.
Better hope and pray that no one in the conservative wing of the SCOTUS retires, gets sick or dies while Obama is in office.
They are destroying the Language and meaning of Words. He who controls the Words, controls the perceptions of the masses.
First of all, sodomizing others is a learned behavior....it is proven mutable-—even the pedophile Kinsey stated that sexuality was “fluid”. Environment determines “desires”—like with the drones capturing arabs raping goats or with their desire for boys for sexual recreation, and hatred of women....it is learned and habituated “ethics”.
Claiming homosexuality is “immutable” is a lie and the “Justice” of having dysfunctional, vile acts as sodomy-—a Vice-—forced on people by “Just Law” destroys the meaning of “Justice” (the Queen of Virtue, since Socrates in Western Civilization).
They are redefining Vice and Virtue, removing our Ethic System which is embedded in our Constitution and replacing it with paganism and Satanism which is never “Just” nor rational. It denies Truth, God and Biology. Our Justice system never can eject Reason or the Laws of Nature-—which sodomizing others always does.
Queers: "We are the 2.3%". 07/15/2014 192kb.pdf
It never ceases to amaze me that such a small, small percentage of our population could take so much of our time.
The Devil is indeed strong. But not nearly as strong as our Lord Jesus.
Whichever one the Democrats like more.
If such is the case, then by logic, those who support this MUST support my 2nd Amendment right to own whatever firearms I deem necessary, not whatever the states or Federal government will “let me have”.
I’ll wait for this to happen.
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.