Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Dakota rejects changes to reflect gay marriage ruling
Associated Press ^ | Jan 10, 2017 9:54 PM EST | James MacPherson

Posted on 01/10/2017 7:19:55 PM PST by Olog-hai

North Dakota’s Republican-led Senate rejected a measure Tuesday that would have changed state law to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

The bill failed 15-31. It would have changed dozens of references, such as “husband and wife,” to gender-neutral terms. North Dakota law lists “one man, one woman” or “husband and wife” for everything from marriages and divorces to fishing licenses.

The measure got a hearing last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted 4-2 to recommend against passage. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; genderneutral; homosexualagenda; obama; obamalegacy; obergefellvhodges; sodomandgomorrah; ssm; statelaw; supremecourt

1 posted on 01/10/2017 7:19:55 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

We will see what happens if the state attempts to enforce their marriage law.

Would the Trump DoJ intercede?


2 posted on 01/10/2017 7:26:03 PM PST by Timpanagos1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Sanity is still here? PTL.


3 posted on 01/10/2017 7:26:08 PM PST by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

I think Trump will just let the states deal with it. We’ve had 8 years of faggot homo crap shoved down our throats and time to put an end to this nonsense.


4 posted on 01/10/2017 7:29:24 PM PST by max americana (For the 9th time FIRED LIBERALS from our company at this election, and every election since 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Does this mean there’s no legal basis for marriage in North Dakota?

SCOTUS can declare legislation unconstitutional, but SCOTUS can’t issue new legislation.

I believe more than one State has not changed there marriage laws as a result of the SCOTUS decision. Is there no legal basis for marriage in those states?


5 posted on 01/10/2017 7:32:55 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Is all marriage “gay marriage” to you? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.


6 posted on 01/10/2017 7:36:42 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

May God Bless these legislators in North Dakota.


7 posted on 01/10/2017 7:39:20 PM PST by Maudeen (No one on this earth is too far gone for Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

If Obama’s birth certificate is finally found fraudulent, we can expect some will try to vacate the SCOTUS nominations and decisions of the last 8 years.

Let it start now in N.D.


8 posted on 01/10/2017 7:49:28 PM PST by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

A Minot Daily News comment from a concerned citizen regarding the ruling was something like: “What if they (the queers) all decide to leave the state?”

It would be just awful if they left. I mean, gee whiz, what would we do without homos?


9 posted on 01/10/2017 8:20:16 PM PST by redfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The North Dakota State Constitution, Article XI, General Provisions, Section 28. states: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

SCOTUS may be able to declare the above Section 28. unconstitutional in terms of the US Constitution, in other words SCOTUS may be able to declare the above Section 28. null and void, but SCOTUS is not able to replace the words in Section 28. with new words.

If Section 28., which defines marriage in North Dakota, is null and void, and there are no new words to replace Section 28.(which there aren’t as far as I know), no new definition of marriage (which there isn’t as far as I know):

What is the legal basis for marriage in North Dakota? (As near as I can tell there is none.)

What is the legal basis for North Dakota legislation regarding marriage if marriage is undefined in North Dakota? (As near as I can tell there is none.)

How can there be laws for something that is not defined? (I certainly don’t see how.)

How can North Dakota law recognize something that is not defined? (I certainly don’t see how.)

If marriage is not defined in North Dakota, how can anybody be or get legally married in North Dakota?


10 posted on 01/10/2017 8:33:01 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Tenth Amendment.


11 posted on 01/10/2017 8:40:03 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I don’t disagree. That’s why I wrote “SCOTUS may be able”. Are any states making Tenth Amendment claims to justify non compliance with the SCOTUS decision?

And your response doesn’t invalidate my questions.


12 posted on 01/10/2017 8:57:38 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

As far as your questions go, perhaps the First Amendment ought to cover them. Attacks on religion are against the free exercise clause.


13 posted on 01/10/2017 9:21:38 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I addressed civil law, not religion.


14 posted on 01/10/2017 9:47:49 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

The First Amendment is part of civil law, though. So marriage is recognized as part of “free exercise thereof” of religion and a right that no government can abridge. Not so homosexual marriage, which attacks the marriage institution/sacrament of religion.


15 posted on 01/10/2017 9:53:30 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I don’t see how that invalidates anything I wrote. There still has to be a legal definition of marriage within a state to have laws about marriage within that state, regardless of what people do as a matter of religion independent of state law.


16 posted on 01/10/2017 10:08:45 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Why? Is that the only way to defend against leftist attacks on religion?


17 posted on 01/10/2017 10:10:57 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Hopefully this is the start to putting the perverts, the allies of the Muslims attacking Christians, back in their smelly closets.


18 posted on 01/11/2017 4:59:32 AM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redfreedom
We're dealing with much the same situation in NC, with HB2 (men in the ladies' room) bathroom bill.

Libs from all over are refusing to come to our state. Mostly entertainment-related.

The state legislature, in a shocking decision, decided to grow a backbone and stick behind their initial law, instead of the usual backpedaling and apologizing. Largely because the citizens of the state said, "Liberal Pop Star, you're not coming here? Fine. Didn't particularly want you around, anyway."

Life's been good here, of late. 2016 elections might make it better, I think.

19 posted on 01/11/2017 6:28:25 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Why?

How can there be laws for something that is not defined?

Is that the only way to defend against leftist attacks on religion?

1. No.

2. Redefining things to their liking is part of the leftist attack plan and should be resisted.

3. I wrote "...regardless of what people do as a matter of religion independent of state law".

4. You're drifting or driving the discussion away from the concern I expressed in my original post responding to the article. To refresh you on what I wrote in Post 5:

Does this mean there’s no legal basis for marriage in North Dakota?

SCOTUS can declare legislation unconstitutional, but SCOTUS can’t issue new legislation.

I believe more than one State has not changed there marriage laws as a result of the SCOTUS decision. Is there no legal basis for marriage in those states?

Your response was "Is all marriage “gay marriage” to you? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say", the first part of which is a non-sequitor and the second part of which I agree with even though I've tried to remedy it.

If the legal basis for marriage has been eliminated it's going to get interesting as soon as some lawyer figures it out in a divorce, survivors, or last will and testament dispute.

20 posted on 01/11/2017 7:34:35 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

How have you come to the conclusion that the legal basis for marriage has been eliminated in some way?


21 posted on 01/11/2017 7:36:52 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I did not state nor have I come to that conclusion. I question the existence of a legal basis for marriage in states that have not established a definition of marriage consistent with the SCOTUS decision and have left in place a definition inconsistent with that decision.


22 posted on 01/11/2017 7:53:55 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Nobody is obliged to rewrite laws consistent with an aberrant Supreme Court decision. What is that supposed to mean?

You still are being deliberately opaque. And you continue, AFAICS, to disregard the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment that Obergefell v. Hodges have attacked.


23 posted on 01/11/2017 8:00:19 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

So there have been 150 same-sex marriages in North Dakota since the Supreme Court ruling, and in none of those cases did anyone see the need to feel outraged or file a suit over the language on the documents. But now that this has hit the news watch out-of-staters come crawling out of the woodwork to begin litigation.


24 posted on 01/11/2017 8:04:36 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Good for North Dakota. Let one of the homo’s be called “wife” in the relationship.


25 posted on 01/11/2017 8:34:45 AM PST by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Nobody is obliged to rewrite laws consistent with an aberrant Supreme Court decision. What is that supposed to mean?”

I didn’t say they were and your question is unclear.

“You still are being deliberately opaque.”

False, at least in regard to “deliberately”.

“And you continue, AFAICS...”

Either you’re looking in the wrong direction or you can’t see very far.

“...to disregard the freedoms recognized by the First Amendment that Obergefell v. Hodges have attacked.”

That’s not what I’ve tried to discuss in this thread. That doesn’t mean I have disregard.

I think we’re done here. Take the last word if you must, and have a nice day(no sarcasm intended).


26 posted on 01/11/2017 9:50:18 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Well I’m sorry, but I still can’t understand what your point is. Maybe if you articulated one more time I’ll get it, but the way you present it is so convoluted with answering questions with questions that it is not clear.


27 posted on 01/11/2017 10:29:30 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson