Posted on 11/27/2015 7:33:10 PM PST by Salman
Cleo Pablo married her longtime partner when gay weddings became legal in Arizona and looked forward to the day when her wife and their children could move into her home in the small Native American community outside Phoenix where she grew up.
That day never came. The Ak-Chin Indian Community doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and has a law that prohibits unmarried couples from living together. So Pablo voluntarily gave up her tribal home and now is suing the tribe in tribal court to have her marriage validated.
"I want equal opportunity," Pablo said. "I want what every married couple has."
Pablo's situation reflects an overlooked story line following the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision this year that legalized gay marriages nationwide: American Indian reservations are not bound by the decision and many continue to forbid gay marriages and deny insurance and other benefits.
The reasons vary and to some extent depend on cultural recognition of gender identification and roles, and the influence of outside religions, legal experts say. Other issues like high unemployment, alcoholism and suicides on reservations also could be higher on the priority list, said Ann Tweedy, an associate professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, who has studied tribes' marriage laws.
Advocacy groups largely have stayed away from pushing tribes for change, recognizing that tribes have the inherent right to regulate domestic relations within their boundaries.
"Tribal sovereignty is very important to tribes," Tweedy said. "They don't want to just adopt what the U.S. does."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
So the natives are not so PC.
We should get all our states and localities declared “tribal”.
Good for them!
Wow, this is going to set Justice Kennedy on the warpath.
Ak-Chin are good neighbors.
Where can I find some Indian blood? Red Cross??
Where’s F Troop’s Medicine Man when you need him?
Hey I need to have my Choctaw bloodline officially recognised!
It’s biologically impossible for them to have children together. Funny how these sob stories are always written. A whole society must change because of one person’s mental problems /s
You don’t need Injun blood. Just “self-identify” as Native American.
they must be thinking “it’s bad enough they clobbered us, now they have gone insane and are letting men be women, babies be killed and two men or women get married. geesh.”
In all fairness to the tribes, “we” weren’t plagued with uber-touchy-feely-gropey-(censored)y progressive nitwits back then.
Some of us still aren’t.
It’s not “tribal”... it’s “sovereign”.
if we were back then, they would have won.
if they had the numbers, they probably try to take us out.
pale face has gone insane!!
FReepers excluded.
Done!! Last census. WOOHOO!!!
I am smarter than I am.
Makes me question Ronald Reagan and his selection of Anthony Kennedy. No more Kennedys
The Tohono O’odham Indian, or “Native American” tribe, is located in an independent national enclave within the United States, with autonomous powers, one of which include who may and who may not be a member of their community. Contrary to popular opinion, the tribal council may grant the right for a non-Indian to lease property and even reside as a tenant, but these rights to occupancy may be terminated at the pleasure of the council.
Now, not all Indian reservations are constructed with the same rules, but one thing is paramount - the tribe has the authority to declare someone to be a tribal member, or not. Once a tribe is recognized by the Federal government as a cultural entity, this then endows them with certain other powers, one of which is to make a deal to purchase a tract of land and convert it to reservation status. The tribe is also expected to present a charter of how they shall be governed, which is on record with the Federal government, and to abide with that charter, once they have adopted it.
Not all tribes are equally disciplined, as some have sold off their rights to the land, or accepted a buy-out from the tribe, and essentially emancipated themselves from tribal authority, continuing to live off the reservation.
It would appear that this “same-sex” couple has chosen to be emancipated. There is no requirement that the tribe take them back, except by petition, which would be voted on by the tribal council.
It might be added, that interpreting Indian treaty law is a sometimes very complicated process.
Thank you for referencing that article Salman. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
In stark contrast to the specific rights explicitly protected by the Constitutions Bill of Rights for example, those amendments to the Constitution ratified by the states through the Constitutions Article V amendment process, the states have never ratified a right to gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. So pro-gay activist justices actually had no constitutionally enumerated right to gay ”marriage” to throw at the states through the 14th Amendment as required by that amendment.
In other words, activist majority justices had no constitutional basis to declare that 10A-protected state laws which prohibited constitutionally unprotected gay ”marriage” are unconstitutional.
What really happened concerning the Courts scandalous legalization of gay marriage is this imo. Pro-gay activist justices not only stole legislative branch powers to legislate the so-called right to gay ”marriage” from the bench, but they breached the Founding States division of federal and state government powers to steal unique, 10A-protected state legislative power to regulate marriage to do so. (Note that the corrupt Court created the so-called right to have an abortion the same way imo.)
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.