Posted on 09/12/2014 9:18:47 PM PDT by Steelfish
U.S. Judge Orders Arizona To Recognize Gay Marriage From California Fred McQuire and George Martinez In this July 2014 photo provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Fred McQuire, left, and George Martinez pose for photos at their wedding in California. A federal judge ordered Arizona to recognize their marriage. (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund) By JAMES QUEALLY
A federal judge in Arizona ruled Friday that state officials must recognize the marriage of two men who were wed in California this year, though the ruling will not affect the ongoing fight to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage, court filings show.
In a 14-page ruling, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick found that Arizona officials must recognize the marriage of John McQuire and George Martinez, who were wed in California in July.
Martinez died of a terminal illness this year, and McQuire was demanding that Arizona officials release a death certificate recognizing him as Martinez's husband.
"Couples in America should not have to play 'now you're married, now you're not' depending on which state they are in when a tragedy strikes, and states should not pick and choose which marriages they will respect and which they won’t as if we did not have one Constitution protecting all of us," Evan Wolfson, president of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, I guess that would bite them in the a**, wouldn’t it?
fight or not, they still have no authority
anyone charged with violating the judges decree cannot be persecuted
Watch the magic that is the federal government in action.
DOMA :
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
In fact, Section 2 of DOMA is reasonably based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause (Section 1 of Article IV) which gives Congress the power to decide the effect of one state's records in other states. And regardless of the decision of the misguided judge, Section 2 indicates that it is entirely up to a given state to decide whether or not to recognize official same-sex marriages from other states.
On the other hand, are Arizona officials possibly working in cahoots with the federal judge to promote gay marriage?
Well thanks to all the lesser evils now in govt, there is no chance of a state pushback anywhere.
But it was really a great idea. Really. Standing with ones thumb inserted while allowing liberalism to advance unopposed is sooooo much better for America. Same result as pushing it themselves, but it’s better. Really. Lots better when an R does it./S
GO BREWER! GO LESSER EVIL!!! (See longstanding tagline)
BTW, I say this as an AZ resident.
seriously how can you deny any other state laws regarding individuals, being recognized in other states, then?
you cannot. they may attempt to rationalize an excuse but logically they cannot.
Of course logic has little to do with the progressive mind.
They can believe two contradictory things at the same time. Orwellian newspeak.
yeah, liberal logic means never to having to examine your own hypocrisy.
sodomites are still a minute portion of the population but is a part of the bigger cancer.
It is the rejection of Christianity and the Bible.
As the Jews were hated for bringing forth the Laws of God, so it is the same for Christianity.
Thou shall not bear false witness, thou shall not steal, thou shall not have any gods before me, etc. flies in the face of the progressive agenda.
socialists/commies/fascists have to have the breakdown of morals to get their agenda across.
We give in when we agree with their terminology. They are not “gays”, they are sodomites, queers.
A liar is a liar, they did not misspeak.
perversion is perversion, it is not some psycho illness.
A thief is not a disadvantaged “poor” youth.
We have a party that is the godless party of perversion and another that is tagging along.
I am old. I fear for my children and grandchildren, not myself.
Tell the judge to embrace the suck. We refuse to obey an unlawful judgement.
Yet another modern day Roland Frieseler.
state laws should rule in matters such as these - I do believe the US Supreme Court would rule for the State if given the opportunity.
“We need an amendment to the constitution to settle this matter, or we need to leave the union.”
You have it already. It’s the 10th Amendment. You have to assert it at every turn against the Federal government though - or it means nothing. With the 10th Amendment broadly applied, there is little reason for states to leave the union.
The 10th Amendment has been ignored and undermined since the Civil War. It will take a large sustained effort by many states simultaneously to restore it. It can be done - but it will take an educated and stubborn electorate to make it happen.
“I do believe the US Supreme Court would rule for the State if given the opportunity”
Even if they didn’t, states need to stubbornly insist that the 10th Amendment be properly applied. The Constitution does not depend upon having a full complement of competent Supreme Court justices. We don’t have that anyway.
By Wolfson’s brilliant logic, states must recognize respect all marriages. All? Every type of love based on the endless Facebook list of sexuality? Every single kind?
Man-man, brother-sister, man-dog? Recently a woman in Canada got married to a Ferris wheel. She liked its vibrations. It’s called human-machine love.
Judges should require us to respect all marriages?
Yup. My first thought as well. Unfortunately, you can't expect logical consistency from this crowd.
“As shown by all of the Federal Judges overturning almost all of the State Level Constitutional amendments against Gay Marriage, your approach ain’t working.”
Do it again. Outlaw it, refuse to accept Gay Marriages, reject federal funds (yeah, I know....) impede unconstitutional federal employees from doing what they do in your state. Arrest federal agents violating state law. There are lots of things you could do. Make the feds punish your state. Make them use force against you (federal agents, not military). Make them throw your state legislature in jail . Make them occupy your state.
Don’t secede, disobey.
Yeah, it won’t happen, at least not yet.
But as the Obama crowd is fond of saying “don’t let a crisis go to waste” - well wait until there is a crisis - a federal government shutdown, for instance - and take advantage of that.
These are some things - you can’t convince people overnight - or perhaps never at all. If that’s true then a state doesn’t deserve it’s rights back. It won’t be decided in the courts, and you can’t amend a constitution that will be ignored.
People have to want their freedom and self-governance back. If they don’t, you’ll never get there anyway.
True enough. Perhaps getting the judges to fear for their jobs would get them moving down the right path?
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.