Posted on 01/23/2015 8:13:42 PM PST by DJ MacWoW
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama became the latest state to see its ban on gay marriage fall to a federal court ruling Friday, as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Callie V.S. Granade ruled in favor of two Mobile women who sued to challenge Alabama's refusal to recognize their 2008 marriage performed in California. The ruling is the latest in a string of wins for advocates of marriage rights. Judges have also struck down bans in several other Southern states, including the Carolinas, Florida, Mississippi and Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court announced this month that it will take up the issue of whether gay couples have a fundamental right to marry and if states can ban such unions.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
What reason is there for Alabama to remain loyal to DC? They mock and destroy everything we are.
The pro-gun forces do not have enough money or power to use that strategy. The queers have money from all the one-world organizations, because the know that destroying a country’s morality destroys its productivity and hence its temporal power. It’s the old communist agenda.
Laws passed by State legislatures and Referenda which have passed on a general vote by the electorate are summarily overturned by Federal judges. What more can be done "peacefully"?
The judiciary at all levels, but particularly at the Federal, has become a tyrannical oligarchy. Where is the Balance of Powers?
a) Impeach and remove the judge.
b) Disestablish his circuit. Send him home.
Of course, few congressmen or senators are willing to stir up those hornets' nests, despite the palpable threat such judicial tyranny represents to the people and their republic. We must first realize that restoration of republican liberty will not emerge from those who profit so well from the existing system. Elections have become courtesies designed to let us feel we can have real influence. If restoration is going to happen, it must be from the bottom up, through our states.
That leaves:
c) An Article V state convention to propose amendments.
The only worthwhile amendments are structural, not subject to "interpretation," along the lines of even calendar year elections, six year senatorial terms, etc.
Mark Levin has proposed several amendments that super federalize the government and could not be ignored. If amended as he proposes, a lot of power will be removed from DC, and diffused across the republic.
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments.
Au Contraire', one of the little tricks used to muddy the waters is harvest and fertilize eggs from one partner, then implant them in the other....
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support
efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality
demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If
those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind
the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes to “marriage” that God cannot and will not sanction.
In related news:
Oklahoma bill would put an end to marriage licenses
Oklahoma state Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, has filed a bill that would put an end to marriage licenses in the state. Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the court clerk.
Marriage licenses would become a thing of the past in Oklahoma under a bill filed by state Rep. Todd Russ.
The Cordell Republican says he wants to protect court clerks from having to issue licenses to same-sex couples. He doesn’t want these workers put in the position of having to condone or facilitate same-sex marriage.
Under his plan, a religious official would sign a couple’s marriage certificate, which would then be filed with the clerk. Marriages would no longer be performed by judges. If a couple did not have a religious official to preside over their wedding, they could file an affidavit of common law marriage.
“Marriages are not supposed to be a government thing anyway,” he said Wednesday.
Russ, a credentialed Assemblies of God minister, is upset with rulings that have supported same-sex marriage.
“There’s a lot of constituents and people across the state who are not through pushing back on the federal government for the slam down they’ve given us with Supreme Court rulings,” he said.
Same-sex marriage became legal in Oklahoma in October. That’s when the high court declined to review a federal court decision striking down a voter-approved ban on the practice....
http://newsok.com/article/5386633
Yes dear FReeper, I do know that but then it’s not “their” child is it.
“In today’s America there isn’t one state willing to oppose the national authority and reclaim its sovereignty.”
If there is to be one, I’d put my money on Alabama. It’s one of the very few states where support for gay marriage hasn’t already exceeded 50%.
We’ll see what the governor does.
This litany of abuse against states by these federal judges strongly shows a need for reform. The constitution requires a supreme court, but all other courts are created at the discretion of congress.
And congress has been remiss in tidying up the federal judiciary.
A lot of sitting federal judges should be retired, though they likely cannot be fired, so will continue to get a paycheck until they peg out. But at least they will no longer infest the bench.
So fair warning to the SCOTUS. They had better issue a strong ruling soon that puts the rest of the judiciary in its proper place, or it will be done for them.
I honestly don’t believe SCOTUS is going to restore the balance of power. The people spoke loud and clear on this issue and the courts told them to shut up starting with Prop 8 in California and SCOTUS backed up the court’s power grab.
“Same-sex marriage became legal”
Uh, no, actually false (although a common enough mistake).
What happened was a court of uncertain jurisdiction and authority enjoined Oklahoma from ENFORCING its law because of a supposed conflict with the Federal constitution.
This court order does not (cannot) change the law in Oklahoma. That law, unless repealed by the legislature, is still the law and same sex “marriages” are still illegal in Oklahoma.
To the extent that the chief law enforcement officer recognizes the AUTHORITY of a court to issue this injunction, and to the extent that said officer AGREES with the interpretation of this court, he may allow these relationships to be called “marriages”. But, just as a court cannot repeal Oklahoma’s law, neither can the governor nor can the Attorney General.
Please stop using “became legal” to describe injunctions against ENFORCING perfectly valid acts of legislatures.
This is a great reason, I believe, that if the Republican leadership blocks the path to the presidency for Senator Cruz, that the price they must pay for their Republican liberal candidate, if he wins, is to name Senator Cruz to the Supreme Court.
Their motive for doing so would be to remove him as a gadfly in the senate, but by having a conservative bloc in the SCOTUS of 6-3, conservatism would win big.
We certainly need men like him in positions of power.
It’s only one biological mother at the maximum, out of that couple. That is what he is referring to. Even if there was a donated fertilized egg, that is still only one biological mother.
“Please stop using “became legal” to describe injunctions against ENFORCING perfectly valid acts of legislatures.”
I fully understand the technical legalities. My simple language was directed at the effect of the various jurisdictions and rulings. The effect of a state being enjoined by a federal court from enforcing a state law is something other than the plain language of the law, to wit, that sooner or later people of the same sex are going to be married.
This is exactly why I have the position that I do: we must remove from government the power to declare and regulate marriage and instead only recognize marriages that people declare (ex post) to the state. If this means that the State must adjust some of its other laws and taxes, that is the price for returning marriage to the private sphere, and thus out of the hands of people who are hostile to godly marriage and who are “hell bent” (to borrow a phrase) at using the state to destroy it.
Easier said than demonstrated. Just look at all the legal boilerplate that has grown up around surrogate mothering just to make her think she hasn't got a chance if she decides to assert parental rights and I think your tune will be playing much more softly.
I adopted from the other side of the planet, because in America there is no such thing as a binding contract with a woman if a kid is involved.
Sigh. Black robed tyrants can usurp the will of the people and make it legal, but they can’t make it right.
Amen!
I know the legal conundrums, and despite a lot of crap talk, I still stand where I do on the matter. Our society is not doing great in many ways, family living being one of them, despite what the POTUS and the MSM say to the contrary.
Tag line change
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.