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 ...
We will see what happens if the state attempts to enforce their marriage law.
Would the Trump DoJ intercede?
Sanity is still here? PTL.
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.
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?
Is all marriage “gay marriage” to you? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
May God Bless these legislators in North Dakota.
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.
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?
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?
Tenth Amendment.
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.
As far as your questions go, perhaps the First Amendment ought to cover them. Attacks on religion are against the free exercise clause.
I addressed civil law, not religion.
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.
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.
Why? Is that the only way to defend against leftist attacks on religion?
Hopefully this is the start to putting the perverts, the allies of the Muslims attacking Christians, back in their smelly closets.
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.
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.
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.