Posted on 10/10/2014 3:12:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Edited on 10/10/2014 3:33:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court on Friday night allowed same-sex marriages to begin in Idaho, ending a dramatic week in which the right of gay couples to marry expanded dramatically across the nation.
In a one-sentence order, the justices denied a request from Idaho Gov. C.L. Butch Otter (R) to delay the unions so the state could continue its appeals. The court gave no reason for the action nor were there recorded dissents.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Honestly, I wish a lot of states would do that.
Sadly, all too many of them are falling in line behind this nonsense.
First of all, get it out of our schools right now.
I don’t know the “strike through” but the article should read:
“The Supreme Court on Friday night FORCED (not allowed) same-sex marriages to begin in Idaho,”
Scuttlebutt reporting by the Washington Post.
What argument is there? America has turned into a depraved sewer, embracing evil, corruption and degeneracy on all fronts. Better to just burn it down and salt the earth.
Or, pick up arms and wage bloody combat.
I don’t consider it an activist court to recognize depravity for what it is, and deny it equal standing with the male female nation building model.
DO
In Dixie....I personally know a half dozen prominent homo men with wives and kids
They don’t want to openly live the life
Weird
One of them has a famous daughter
Think ......”: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.”
A hint...
Homosexuality is a judgement on America.
This needs to be pointed out consistently - homosexuality will not just bring judgement upon our country; homosexuality IS the judgement. Romans 1:26 starts with “For this reason” and continues “God gave them up to vile passions.” “..men with men committing what is shameful”; so this is a judgement upon our society.
It also continues and says that they give approval to others for more and more evil acts. We see this today with our legislatures accepting homosexual marriages and the teaching of it as acceptable in the schools.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
But didn`t we all think he would be great? I recall at one point things didn`t look great in getting Conservatives through, GW `s lawyer and Attorney General of the day were mentioned, then all of a sudden we had Alito and Roberts.
I recall some serious conservative pundits pretty much in agreement that this would be Bush`s legacy...meaning a good legacy...so Roberts will be a black mark now, but I think at the time we were pretty excited.
Alito was thought to be the more Conservative of the 2
The problem is that it is up to the State legislatures, or Congress, to write a law that will withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Heck, we can’t even get a law out of the 7th Circuit without Posner laughing at it (naturally, everyone blamed Posner instead of blaming themselves).
I’m just waiting to see what my state of Texas will do, followed by my birthstate of Louisiana. I know the people here, and this isn’t going to be just some mild little thing. There’s a real undercurrent of combustability that you can feel in the air. The wave of diseased illegals is a big part of that too.
But whatever the case, if the US Courts try to impose this depravity here on my state, I’ll fully be on board with secession.
Alito and Roberts gave you your guns back, don’t forget.
Keir Dullea has a famous daughter ? He doesn’t have any bio kids.
Kennedy will burn in hell
What the states should do is to stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone. Do away with civil marriages all together. All marriages would be as witnessed by a church and attendees. That’s the way it uses to be anyway.
The state should never have been in the marriage business in the first place. It seems to me that by re-defining the state marriage contract, they are invalidating marriages between existing opposite sex couples.
Homo. Sham marriage. Bush vetters knew, too.
WarDaddy, thanks for the mention. I should probably get it from the hint, but for some reason it’s not registering with me.
When I hear of this sort of thing, one thing occurs to me almost immediately. The wives of these men are exposing themselves to all manner of disease.
Perhaps they’re not cohabiting in the conventional manner any longer. If so and there are children involved, I’d tell these guys to take a hike. I wouldn’t expose myself to any of this.
I don’t think it’s fair or reasoned for the kids to be around this either
I’m not here to propose homosexuals be singled out for special treatment, of a societal nature. I simply want them to live their lives in peace, leaving traditional marriage and heterosexual people and their children alone.
Louisiana’s ruling could leave it as being one of the last States standing along with Mississippi’s and Tennessee’s, all of the District Appeals Courts. The Appeals Court of course, ruled positively for La. So, that is one of the slim hopes to overturn this debacle.
I think someone is handing out envelopes of cash again
Does anyone know what the states can actually do about the federal government overruling them? Other than all of us complaining about it? If there IS something we can do, how do we the people get it started? I know we have talked about secession etc, but in reality what can be done?
> Is he a homosexual? I thought he was a family man, but I never actually tried to research it.
Only his proctologist knows fer sure...: )
The problem is that activist justices have wrongly given gay couples the so-called right to marry outside the framework of the Constitution.
As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like marriage means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues.
The Constitution's silence about marriage also means that things like the so-called "right" of gay marriage is actually constitutionally unprotected, the 14th Amendment (14A) applying only constitutionally enumerated protections to the states as we shall see below.
So the states have the constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected power to make laws which prohibit gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
Getting back to 14A, judges who declare state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional are basing such statements on a PC interpration of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) in Section 1 of that amendment as per the following explanation.
Pro-gay activist judges are wrongly putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read the right to gay marriage into the EPC. But in doing so they are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has previously clarified that 14A didn't add new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens protections expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
“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.
In fact, the Court's statement from Minor reflects the official clarification of the scope of 14A, the clarification mady by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1. Bingham had stated that the amendment applies only protections enumerated into the Constitution by the states to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, since the state have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay issues, gay marriage in this case, there is no enumerated constitutional protection for gay marriage for the courts to apply the states.
The question concerning the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue is this. Did pro-gay activist state lawmakers make laws to prohibit gay marriage for the real purpose of using them as pawns for pro-gay activist justices to ignore, both the states and the Court actually intending to promote the constitutionally unprotected gay agenda with such a ploy?
On the other hand, did the legal professionals who have dropped the baton on this issue study law at institutions which are actually teaching post FDR-era pervervions of the Constitution?
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.