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

Skip to comments.

Federal judge strikes down Kentucky ban on same-sex marriages performed in other states
WAVE News ^ | 02/12/2014 | Joey Brown

Posted on 02/12/2014 9:45:58 AM PST by GIdget2004

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Kentucky's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states is unconstitutional.

The legal challenge was filed last year on behalf of Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon of Louisville who have been together more than 30 years and have two children.

(Excerpt) Read more at wave3.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: lepton

Ummm, you’re thinking too small: Constitutional carry. I mean, it’s ‘legal’ in 5 States already, right? /s


21 posted on 02/12/2014 10:14:59 AM PST by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Disgusting. We are unmoored from the constitution.


22 posted on 02/12/2014 10:17:30 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

John Wayne Gacy ‘had’ a lot of children.


23 posted on 02/12/2014 10:18:29 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Just dissolve the State legislatures and let the Federal Judges rule the states.


24 posted on 02/12/2014 10:25:52 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

We have too many law schools.

At this point ANY quack can become a lawyer and then a judge. Qualifications are meaningless.

How about just letting ANYBODY sit for the bar exams?
How about federalizing licensing of lawyers for all fifty states?

It is junk judges which are enforcing the marxism.


25 posted on 02/12/2014 10:28:32 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

What has Canada to do with this story? I don’t see it mentioned.


26 posted on 02/12/2014 10:30:39 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
We don't interpret the Constitution correctly. This is a good website on the consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment:

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/consequences.html

27 posted on 02/12/2014 10:30:44 AM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

ARRIVING IN GOMORRAH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd3tonnjMSI&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw&feature=c4-overview


28 posted on 02/12/2014 10:34:06 AM PST by Dick Bachert (Ignorance is NOT BLISS. It is the ROAD TO SERFDOM! We're on a ROAD TRIP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Seriously, why do we even have borders as states at this point much less governors or legislatures. Why do we have state criminal and civil laws? Seriously why? Why do we need any sort of state structure if it can be arbitrarily tossed aside by the feds. The federal government or some federal judge simply ignore state laws at their whims and demand we submit to the all might federalis’.

Why vote? What’s the point, it means nothing. We are in the early beginnings of a deep dark tyranny and the Republican fools in Washington stand around playing chicken little with not a spine among the insufferable bastards.


29 posted on 02/12/2014 10:34:30 AM PST by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

What is the name and email address of this scumbag Federal Judge?


30 posted on 02/12/2014 10:34:41 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cS4p9cFlo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw


31 posted on 02/12/2014 10:35:07 AM PST by Dick Bachert (Ignorance is NOT BLISS. It is the ROAD TO SERFDOM! We're on a ROAD TRIP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

I understand your point. Mine was that they don’t even recognize specifically issued CCW permits for an enumerated right as applicable across state lines.


32 posted on 02/12/2014 10:35:47 AM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73; lepton; cuban leaf

Maybe that’s why NYC prosecutors seem quick to settle CCW permittees arrested for carrying in NYC: if challenged the NYC law might get struck down.


33 posted on 02/12/2014 10:43:48 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012; Foundahardheadedwoman
Where’d they get the children from?

I imagine from the same place that opposite sex couples who can't get pregnant together get children: previous relationships, artificial insemination, surrogate birth-mother, adoption of non-related children, foster or adoption of relatives (nephews, nieces, etc.).

You know, this isn't exactly rocket science.

34 posted on 02/12/2014 10:45:22 AM PST by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Pooped ‘em out ?


35 posted on 02/12/2014 10:48:42 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004; All
Unless we're talking about an activist judge, regardless that the liberal media wrongly gave the impression that the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in its entirety, the Court actually let stand a key provision of DOMA which this judge probably should have respected; I don't know the specifics of the referenced case.

Under Congress's constitutional Article IV, Section 1 authority which allows Congress to legislatively determine the extent to which one state has to respect the records of another state, the significant DOMA provision which still stands is Section 2 below.

DOMA:

Note that Section 3 above is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. And I agree with the Supreme Court because the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. Only the states can regulate marriage. And only the states can amend the Constitution to define marriage. The problem is that the states, including low-information state lawmakers, have been asleep at the wheel concerning such issues.

Also, probably the main reason that patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges rule in favor of the pro-gay movement is the following imo. Low information-patriots evidently do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage which this judge seems to be ignoring. So the states can actually make laws which distriminate against things like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

36 posted on 02/12/2014 10:50:56 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Not saying I like the idea, but is because of Article IV section 1, the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. States must recognize the official public acts of other states. This is why the fight against gay “marriage” started to be lost once any state recognized it. It was also why the Defense of Marriage Act was doomed to fail and why the only real way to stop gay marriage was to pass a Constitutional amendment against it—and I’m afraid the likelihood of that has long-since passed.

Back in the 40s divorce in some states was nearly impossible—but in one state, Nevada, a person could get a divorce just by applying for it and living in the state for six weeks. Your Nevada divorce had to be recognized by your home state. Popular culture of the time would allude to this by saying “his wife has gone to Reno”.


37 posted on 02/12/2014 10:52:20 AM PST by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Maybe that’s why NYC prosecutors seem quick to settle CCW permittees arrested for carrying in NYC: if challenged the NYC law might get struck down.


We need a patriot to go up there and refuse to settle, risking his future for the sake of America.


38 posted on 02/12/2014 10:59:14 AM PST by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Unlike our present President, I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar. However, the first sentence here is pretty straightforward. Based strictly on it, any state must recognize the marriages that are legal in every other state.

"Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which (they) shall be proved" is also pretty clear. It means Congress prescribes the methods by which judicial acts in one state, such as marriages, are to be documented for acceptance by another state.

"Congress may by general laws prescribe ... the effect thereof." is where the interpretation comes in. Given the Founders' notorious suspicion of federal power, I seriously doubt they intended to give Congress the power to exclude certain "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" from the requirements of the first sentence whenever it so chose. This would give Congress, in essence, the power to decide which "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of the states need be accepted by other states. If that was their intent, why didn't they just say so?

I suspect the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional for perfectly conservative and states' rights reasons.

Does Congress have, or should it have, the power to decide which state laws must be respected by other states? Or did the Constitution intend to give Congress the power to regulate how such laws would be communicated between states?

39 posted on 02/12/2014 11:03:24 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Let me guess before I read the article to check: Did they use the Commerce Clause?


40 posted on 02/12/2014 11:09:51 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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