Posted on 03/10/2016 7:25:43 PM PST by Olog-hai
After a failed 37-hour filibuster by Democrats, the Missouri Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to add greater religious protections to the state constitution for some business owners and individuals opposed to gay marriage.
Senators voted 23-7 along party lines to give the measure final approval after the Democratic filibuster ground work in the chamber to a halt.
Division over the measure highlights national debate over how to balance civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and religious liberties following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer that legalized same-sex marriages in all states. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
To be vetoed by Missouri’s rat governor?
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like all Americans, such people have civil rights that are abundantly protected here as nowhere else. There is, however, no right to commit a wrong, such as sodomy or tiresome whining. Moses was very clear on this when the children of Israel strayed into witchcraft and perversion. His solution, I'm told, involved a sword.
It might have been for the whining.
No doubt. But likely Nixon’s veto will be overridden. But then a black-robed superior will overrule the the legislature’s action, so that gays can force people to participate in their “marriages”.
So once again, the courts abrogate their duty to the Constitution.
Not only did the courts abrogate their duty to the Constitution, but both federal and state lawmakers didn’t lift a finger to do anything about activist justices or judges.
What difference is this supposed to make? If an unelected court can willy-nilly throw a state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT in the trash can, what’s to keep them from nullifying any duly passed law?
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.