Posted on 03/16/2017 12:26:54 PM PDT by drewh
Inb4federalpoliticalhackjudgecallsitunconstitutional!
Get the ball rolling, and maybe more timid states (that are inclined in that direction) will join in.
I will have to read this later. There is a lot to digest.
It would seem that marriage is a state issue, but, like abortion, it has been co-opted by the federal government/Supreme Court. That is my first thought, though I’m probably wrong.
In any case, good for Arkansas! As Mike Gallagher would say, they are “fighting the good fight.” :)
Agree with the author that the “full faith and credit” clause has nothing to do with what is specifically a State issue, thus the 10th Amendment controls any such rulings. SCOTUS has no direction where the Constitution is silent. If it is not specifically stated in the Constitution or any of its Amendments, then it is a State issue. Mike Drop.
Legally, nice try but no cigar.
SCOTUS has spoken affirmatively to the constitutionality of the issue.
No state constitutional amendment nor other addition, nor statute will superseded that.
Know we don’t like it, but it’s the law.
Withdrawn 3-14-2017
No...it is a closely decided judicial decision. The opinion of a few lawyers. It currently is given the force of law. But the ruling is contrary to history, culture and nature and stands on a foundation of sand.
The left's two greatest cultural accomplishments, abortion and gay marriage, are based on judicial fiat, not cultural and social acceptance. Both are horrible examples of constitutional law. Both are essentially non-democratic assertions of naked federal power and will forever divide our nation.
Unless you are talking about Concealed Carry.
In a Constitutional Government, Congress would correct this, but it seems the only thing they seem adept at is making personal fortunes.
It would be great if even some of or Congress would have actually read the Constitution.
Well, no. Actually, courts rulings do not become law, they can only strike down existing laws or policy. Legislatures/congress must by any form pf logic, then go back and pass a corrected law that meets the scotus standard or no law regarding that subject exists.
For instance- in 2006 Missouri passed a constitutional amendment stating marriage is only between one man and one woman. That popular amendment ( passed with some 78% of the vote) was struck by the recent homo ruling. Just as I said before, the County Clerk lady who said she could not sign marriage certificates said so because her state’s law was ruled void by that scotus ruling. No law, no clerk actions. To my knowledge, TN ( or was it KY?) still has not amended its law regarding marriage to meet the scotus standard, so technically that state has no marriage laws that have force of law....
I'd settle for a few more liberal judges that actually read the Constitution!
The great irony is how the Left uses the Constitution as a weapon to advance their agenda thorough judicial dictate. Hence abortion and gay marriage, both of which were either taboo or illegal when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were adopted and indisputably outside of original intent.
But express constitutional guarantees, like the Second Amendment and State's Rights are either ignored or marginalized by liberal courts. In these cases, the Constitution has no use to the Left, and therefore, no meaning.
If the founders wanted the Constitution to automatically mean different things as society evolved, why include a very clear procedure for amendment? Yet another express portion of the Constitution which the Left pretends has no meaning.
Onward!
“Well, no. Actually, courts rulings do not become law, they can only strike down existing laws or policy.”
Well, no. Actually. A court ruling is a court ruling and observation thereof is mandatory, like or not. They are not limited to constraining orders.
A classic example: We enjoy Freedom of the Press. But the Constitution does not guarantee freedom of Radio, or TV, or the Internet. We enjoy those freedoms because SCOTUS decided the Framer’s intent was really “Freedom of the Media.” Back when the USC was adopted, the primary “media” was “The Press.” Now, that expanded freedom gives us the guarantee JR can operate FR, even though no “press” is involved.
Your TN/KY example is perfectly on point: Law or not, marriage license applicants, after the called-for fees, ceremony, etc, are legally married.
"Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
If I understand the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor (DOMA) correctly, what the corrupt media and pro-LGBT, state sovereignty-ignoring justices probably don't want anybody to find about the Court's decision that DOMA is unconstitutional is explained as follows.
The main provisions in DOMA are as follows.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
What the Supreme Court actually decided was unconstitutional about DOMA is Section 3 which defines marriage. And I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision because the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate marriage per se, marriage uniquely a state power issue.
But not only is Section 2 of DOMA evidently still in effect (corrections welcome), it is a good example of Congress’s “Full Faith and Credit” power to regulate the effect of records between states.
So not only is it wise for Arkansas and any state to put its marriage policies in writing, but the Arkansas marriage bill is strengthened by Section 2 of DOMA where effect is concerned.
Again, we haven’t been hearing about DOMA with respect to Congress’s power to regulate effect of marriage between states probably because of Obama era pro-LGBT political correctness.
No...it is a closely decided judicial decision. The opinion of a few lawyers. It currently is given the force of law. But the ruling is contrary to history, culture and nature and stands on a foundation of sand...
and like it or hate it, its is still the law we must follow, until and if we can elect officials to change it.
It's called living in a Civil Society.
An old Trade School (law school) prof told us "The best judges are the ones who will give you a decision they personally despise... and a 90 day stay to get the law changed, or show them where they were wrong.
Fraud by court is NEVER law.
It’s about time someone stood up to court mafia.
“Fraud by court is NEVER law.
It’s about time someone stood up to court mafia.”
I’m sorry, but this is far from Fraud by Court. When you don’t like a decision, work to get it reversed.
For example, the government-paid lawyer who sued the DC Dry Cleaners for millions in Person v. Chung. I was proud to be part of a group who ended up grinding Pearson into the dirt in that matter.
One “stands up” with logic and votes, not rhetoric and/or guns.
I agree. But the Left no longer does.
As you noted, the Right views the Constitution as a charter to live in peace with people of different beliefs and preferences. But the Left doesn't see it that way. They use the Constitution as a malleable weapon to defeat political opposition. They don't recognize the value of social peace that is provided by the Rule of Law. They believe in the Rule of the Mob.
Maybe the Right will eventually figure out that while it was playing football, the Left was secretly playing rugby. The whole time holding the Right to rules the Left feels free to ignore.
At some point the game can't continue.
Good article. Thanks.
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.