Posted on 10/20/2014 11:43:24 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Same-sex couples will have to wait until Tuesday before they can get married in Wyoming.
Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael says the state will notify a federal court at 10 a.m. Tuesday that it won't appeal last Friday's ruling that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled last Friday that the state must permit same-sex marriage, but he issued a stay until this Thursday in order to allow time for the state to appeal.
Skavdahl said his ruling will take effect immediately if the state files paperwork saying it will not appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at billingsgazette.com ...
Is there any state remaining where the Sodomites are not running things?
No. Everyone is giving up on this issue.
No competent lawyer can appeal. The 9th Circuit has already ruled on the issue and Supreme Court refused a stay. Until and unless the Supreme Court takes cert on the 9th Circuit or another Circuit’s or State Supreme Court ruling, no District Court in the 9th Circuit can do otherwise, and no attorney should appeal. Those are the rules.
Way to go, red states!
We all got beat by homos and some judges.
And people here toss out the idea of civil war or revolt? Pfffft! good luck with that.
I am beginning to understand why judges wear robes.
Conservatve SCOTUS.....................
LOL
Obamacare
Rump Rangers rule!
Conservatve??
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
RINO’s say bend over and take it.
RINO’s will ALWAYS surrender to evil. ALWAYS.
Yep, just waiting for ONE state, one leader, to stand up against this tyranny.
Is it going to be true that America is TOTALLY led by cowards and/or degenerates? That sure as hell seems to be the case. I’m becoming convinced more each day that there is truly nothing left of America anymore. It might as well just blow away like old, long-spent ashes.
As mentioned in related threads, as a consequence of widespread ignorance of 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally non-enumerated rights, the pro-gay marriage movement is wrongly getting away with shoving constitutionally unprotected gay marriage down everybody’s throats with a PC interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC).
More specifically, activist judges are wrongly subjectively reading the so-called “right” to gay marriage into the EPC. But by doing so they are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. With respect to constitutional rights, it was intended only to strengthen only those rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
“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.
In fact, the Supreme Court was likely basing its clarification of the scope of 14A on the official clarification of 14A by John Bingham, the main of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.
“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.)
So in order for the courts to apply the so-called “right” to gay marriage to the states via 14A, the states would have already had to amend the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage as a right, imo, which they have never done.
Again, special interest groups are getting away with using judicial activism to shove their agendas down people’s throats because nobody knows the Constitution and its history anymore.
Those are the rules.
The “Rules” also state CLEARLY that in ALL cases where a “State” is a party to the action, that the Supreme Court SHALL have “Original Jurisdiction” and since the Supreme Court has NOT HEARD THE CASE, the State should just Disregard ANY and ALL “Inferior courts”. just like “The Rules” Say. So much for rules huh?
+1
how dare you try to bring up fact and logic in an emotional argument, albeit a fake constitutional one.
But you are correct. And the House is supposed to do it’s job and Impeach those judges.
Good point.
These cases were brought not against states but against their executive or vital statistics officers in their official capacity to compel or prohibit certain enforcement activities, which has always — for the entire history of the judiciary — functioned to vest in the District Court original jurisdiction over suits to nullify state or local laws.
Good note. But Harry Reid is predictably not going to follow through by removing from the bench activist justices or judges who get impeached by the House.
So it matters as to what the definition of is is??
“executive or vital statistics officers”If I accept your premise then it only applies to the “individual” that was sued, because for it to apply to the “State” the Supreme Court Must Hear the Case as outlined in the Constitution. Just because the Judicial Branch decided to disregard the Constitution in cases like this, does not mean that ANY State has to go along with it.
Force The Issue, tell the INFERIOR COURT to go pound sand. If the judge gets uppity, send the State Police over to shoot his dog.
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.