Posted on 09/22/2014 7:30:39 PM PDT by markomalley
The following material is from an older thread concerning this issue.
Patriots need to know why the first 20+ federal judges, and now a state judge, have wrongly decided that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. I don't know if these judges were indoctrinated with the wrong ideas is law school, or if they are pro-gay activists, but below are excerpts from official sources which show why using the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause to declare state marriage bans unconstitutional don't hold water.
Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the Equal Protections Clause is found, 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.
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 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. So the people of Louisiana can work with their state lawmakers and say yes or no to gay marriage under the authority of constitutionally defendable federal DOMA; it's not up to judges to make this decision.
its time to start ignoring these judges.
Going to be one messed up kid.
My late grandfather was always saying that to me, several decades back... that our enemies will use our freedoms to destroy us.
In essence, that is what has happened. I’m just glad my grandfather never lived long enough to see the country succumb, embracing such evil and degeneracy as it has, on its way. Imposing the vile insanity of homo-marriage is probably the last line in the sand, as far as I’m concerned. It tells me the country is truly ready for the ash-heap. Nothing left to even mourn.
He said Rubin found Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause,” which calls for each state to recognize the laws and court decisions of other states.
If the clause is to be so interpreted, it must be interpreted for other rights too. If one obtains a permit for a weapon in a state, other more restrictive states must extend full faith and credit to laws within those freer states. If one has an Arizona CCW, Arizona also permits open carry, without a permit. Imagine the size of the petard the radicals are demanding to be impaled upon in pursuit of their addiction to sexual deviancy.
A state judge, ruling that the state constitution is unconstitutional, and attempting to overrule a court of higher authority.
She needs to be impeached and disbarred.
He, not she.
irrelevant...
unless they’ve decided the separation of church and state is also unConstitutional
Hey. One should never give up on their pipe dreams. :)
And that would entail what?
Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at the Tulane University Law School, said he doesn’t believe a state judge in Lafayette has an obligation to follow Feldman’s decision, because Feldman serves in the New Orleans-based Eastern District of the federal court system in Louisiana and Lafayette Parish is in the Western District.That should make all the "Libertarians" and "state's rights" people happy. Thanks markomalley.
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.