Posted on 08/14/2015 9:21:11 AM PDT by wagglebee
“Homofascism...just a matter of time before they come for our children.”
Two words: boy scouts.
Then I'd say you have a problem with interpretation. What I've been posting about are the legal issues, like this one. One, I haven't been posting about what I prefer to be but about what the law is. Two, I've been correct.
Nope. That's not how it works. The government is made up of people, and certainly as individuals they have all the same rights the rest of us have, that don't work for the government. But the government does not have rights. And when someone is performing functions of their government job they are acting as the government. A judge, in the act of being a judge, has no religious freedom. He has it as an individual, when he's not acting in an official capacity.
Not really relevant to the law, but OK. I do not agree with judicial decisions that have mandated gay marriage against the will of the people. From a legal and political point of view I believe the question is entirely up to the people to decide, either directly or through their legislators.
"Does Ohio have a law that REQUIRES judges to perform wedding ceremonies? YES or NO"
I have no idea. But judges do perform them, clearly, or we wouldn't have this article to post about.
You do realize that there's been a recent Supreme Court decision on this issue, right?
You do realize I'm an attorney, don't you. The Supreme Court decision only stated that statutes which prohibit marriage between two perverts of the same sex are unconstitutional.
So the statutes which prohibit said marriages are technically invalid. But marriage licenses are issued in accordance with those statutes. If the statute is considered invalid, then the state has no authority to issue any license at all.
So, until Ohio passes a new law which sets forth the conditions under which a marriage license can be issued, then the State has no authority to issue any marriage licenses at all.
The Supreme Court's decision is not constitutional. They did not have the authority or the jurisdiction to rule on the case.
The Supreme Court is no longer acting under the Constitution. It is the duty of all Citizens to resist tyranny. What the Supreme Court did was judicial tyranny.
I support everyone who thumbs their nose at that decision.
Let them enforce it, by force. In the interim, Governors and Citizens have the duty to ignore it.
You’re defending the liberal court opinion against the people? Perhaps you’re on the wrong website?
We perceive it pretty negatively already.
This doesn't help.
LOL.
Three, you are an idiot.
What law school did you flunk out of?
Four, you just lost the argument.
No I'm not. I'm explaining that it's not a liberal opinion, it's a legal one. Courts aren't supposed to make decisions to get a particular political outcome, they are supposed to apply the rules. Sometimes the rules properly applied will favor one political side and sometimes another. This particular rule is not controversial, it's just that in this particular case it leads to an outcome we don't like. Judges have to perform gay weddings. It's easy to think of other cases where the same rule would produce outcomes we do like. The rule itself, the government does not have rights, the people do, is a good rule. It is based on the Constitution. And since Free Republic respects the Constitution I think this is good place to explain this.
Advise you stop digging.
Unless this is the hill you choose your FR account to die on.
Really? Where exactly is SCOTUS empowered to create a right that has NEVER existed?
Courts aren't supposed to make decisions to get a particular political outcome, they are supposed to apply the rules.
What rules are they following in creating special privileges for sodomites?
This particular rule is not controversial, it's just that in this particular case it leads to an outcome we don't like.
The hell it isn't.
Judges have to perform gay weddings. It's easy to think of other cases where the same rule would produce outcomes we do like.
I was right before, you are tacitly advancing the homosexual agenda.
The rule itself, the government does not have rights, the people do, is a good rule.
So, judges don't have rights?
********************************
I've read pages and pages of mlo's posting history, which is quite interesting. He seems to have a very good grasp of the law, although I must confess that I am in no way educated in the subject.
It all hangs on that one word: tacitly.
tacit
adjective
understood or implied without being stated : your silence may be taken to mean tacit agreement.
DERIVATIVES
tacitly
adverb
ORIGIN early 17th cent. (in the sense [wordless, noiseless] ): from Latin tacitus, past participle of tacere ‘be silent.’
And this has long been used by libertarians and many in the GOP to advance the left's agenda.
It’s a clever ploy, no doubt about it.
What if a state decides to legalize slavery? Is that okay?
One of the few things scarier than a dictatorship is the form of direct democracy that libertarians tend to favor. The Founding Fathers established a representative republic for a reason.
*****************************
The Founding Fathers were brilliant men, but it seems that there may have been some divine influence as well.
Dearest wagglebee,
When you first pinged me the other day, I also took a look at mlo’s posting history and quickly surmised that mlo has a Juris Doctor (JD) degree and was “tacitly” arguing from a strictly lawyerly view.
Of course, I am often dead-bang wrong!!
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.