Posted on 01/09/2015 9:00:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
After oral arguments about Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas’ bans on marriages for same-sex couples, the 5th Circuit of Appeals looks likely to strike the laws down.
NEW ORLEANS — After three hours of arguments, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared poised to strike down bans on same-sex couples’ marriages in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — joining all but one of the other appellate courts to consider the issue.
If the court upholds the lower court decisions striking down the Mississippi and Texas bans and reverses the trial court decision upholding Louisiana’s ban, it could have the effect of bringing marriage equality to three Deep South states — and it could come before the Supreme Court acts on pending marriage cases.
More than halfway through the morning’s arguments, an exasperated Justin Matheny, the assistant attorney general in Mississippi charged with defending the state’s ban, tried to change his tune during his rebuttal arguments.
When it became clear that the three-judge panel was leaning against upholding the bans, Matheny acknowledged that the “trajectory” for marriage rights for same-sex couples is “undeniable” — but added his new argument: “it’s not there yet.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Really?
So there is no reason to pass laws and no reason to go to war.
The hand picked judges seem uniformly unanimous.
That should be mathematically impossible.
Certainly not Anthony Kennedy, and he’s already made up his mind to impose gay marriage on the entire nation.
The only question now is whether or not Roberts (knowing that Kennedy will vote with the four liberals) makes it a 6-3 decision.
Why stop there? Why continue to prohibit incestuous marriages? To me anything other than sex between a married man and woman is all the same—immoral.
Wish that just ONE governor had the guts to tell the Federal Courts to: Go to Hell!
CW2. Let's roll.
Pro-gay activist justices, judges and state officials are wrongly taking advantage of low-information voters, voters who have probably never been taught about 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected gay “rights” like gay marriage. They are doing so by wrongly reading the so-called right to gay marriage into the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC). But by doing so they are wrongly ignoring that Constitution-respecting justices had historically clarified that 14A added no new constitutional protections. It only strengthens rights that have been 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.
Note that the Supreme Court excerpt above reflects the official clarification of the scope of 14A by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of that Amendment where the EPC is found. Bingham had clariifed that 14A applied only rights expressly amended to 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 states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay “rights,” pro-gay activist state officials have no constitutionally enumerated gay protections to apply to the states via 14A to protect the gay agenda.
In other words, the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay rights imo, such laws based on the constitutionally unchecked, 10A-protected will of legal majority voters, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
And gutless Republican leaders say nothing.
“The only question now is whether or not Roberts (knowing that Kennedy will vote with the four liberals) makes it a 6-3 decision.”
I think you’re correct there. I would not be surprised if Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are the only opposition when SCOTUS makes its decision. Disheartened, but not surprised.
Are there any States that have Laws against Incestuous Marriage and Polygamous Marriage?
Those limitations must be Unconstitutional too, right?
Tour guides will make a fortune taking men to Asia, the former Soviet Union and the Pacific on “2nd wife shopping” trips I predict.
Exactly.
Once you say is ‘marriage is whatever the heck you want’ then why not incest, polygamy, or any other arrangement two more more consenting adults want?
When the Dam bursts, everyone drowns.
Liberals love to joke that in some of those backward “Red” States, you can Marry your First Cousin because there are no Laws against it.
Well, I guess they want the same for all those Progressive thinking “Blue” States too.
Yes. And not just about this particular issue, either; but as regarding all issues.
I have long held that for any given state, its own state supreme court should be considered the highest authority in the land--not to be superseded by the US Supreme Court, or any other institution.
I also believe that those states should have the right to nullify any federal laws they desire to nullify; and that they should not beg permission from the federal government to exercise that authority.
“trajectory”? Judicial putsch.
One word: Revolution.
Two completely different things are now ‘equal.’
How Orwellian.
This is all Bible prophecy. I wish everyone was able to see this or stop ignoring it but the immoral and perverted want what they want. It’s all so sad.
I’m sure they will be coming after GA soon. This gay marriage thing is a total states rights issue and the SCOTUS should have left it there.
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.