Silly Judge! This is Kentucky!! only Cousins can marry there!
Ironic name, oughtta be Hate vs. Beshear
Before anyone asks:
“On the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, Heyburn was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 20, 1992.”
I got into it with some homosexuals on Facebook last week when I asked them, “why do homosexuals need more rights than the rest of us?”.
The replies I received were that I was arrogant or that they just wanted equal rights.
So I clarified my question. I asked,
Why does 2% of the population have the right to FORCE the other 98% to accept homosexual behavior?
Absolutely silence from them all.
No its NOT.
THis damn judge like all the others is legislating from the bench. There is nothing in the Constitution to back up these court decisions and they should be nullified by popular will.
Bad ruling. All individuals in KY, gay or straight, have the right to marry an unmarried consenting adult of the opposite sex who is not their parent, child, first cousin, or first cousin once removed. The state of KY is applying the same rules to everyone. This does not deny equal protection, it just enforces the real definition of marriage.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
There is no 'right' to marry. If there were, you could sue someone for not marrying you just because you asked.
(This is not to be confused with someone who says they'll marry you then won't. That's breach of contract)
Marriage is a Privilege to be engaged in by those who meet the criteria. One man and one woman who share no closely related ties by blood.
----
The country is being killed by people who think they have the right to define......EVERYTHING!
More specifically, justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had officially clarified that the amendment added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthened constitutionally enumerated rights.
“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.
So since the stated had clearly not amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights like gay marriage before 14A was ratified, such "rights" were not constitutionally protected after 14A was ratified.
In fact, the Supreme Court later clarified that interpolations of the Constitution, subjectively reading the "right" to gay marriage into the Equal Protections Clause as per this example, are not to be tolerated.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation [emphasis added] or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
It is up to the lawyers to educate the judiciary on the definition of marriage and its value to society (it is the institution that unites parents with their offspring, provides a mom and a dad to a child, and holds the father responsible for the offspring that he created).
As long as the liberal lawyers succeed in characterizing marriage as a mere contract between two people with associated government benefits and no relationship to procreation, then that’s the end of the societal good that marriage has always provided. One need only look at Black urban populations where single motherhood has taken the place of marriage to see where the country is headed when marriage is disconnected from procreation.
Once the link between marriage and procreation is understood, then the idea that animus has been the only reason for denying marriage to homosexuals is a silly argument. Unless you believe that there is anti-homosexual animus inherent in nature.