Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale
Posted on 05/13/2014 5:33:33 PM PDT by digger48
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - A federal magistrate judge has ruled that Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale wrote in the ruling Tuesday evening that Idaho's laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutionally deny gay and lesbian citizens of their fundamental right to marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at wthr.com ...
The extinctionists strike again....
Well it is our fundamental right isn’t it? Anyone got the number for the USSC? because I am currently unable to exercise my fundamental right.
Can we sue the USSC? Because they can’t tell me that I have this right and then do nothing to deliver it on a platter. This is America 2014. they must provide and ship the redheads to me. Now. I am tired of waiting to exercise my fundamental right.
It is fundamentally unfair.
The actual overthrow of Lawrence v. Texas would not be required for there to be some benefit to calling for its repeal. Simply calling for its repeal would to a certain extent put us on the offensive and the homosexual agenda on the defensive, causing them to utilize time and energy to defend it that might otherwise be used to bring further court cases, etc. for their agenda. It would also perhaps stiffen the spines of many on our side and give courage to those who might now only oppose homosexuality in the safety of the shadows rather than in the bright light of day.
Because it’s a Federal Judge and they have no authority to do that as it’s based on the Federal Constitution.
Who is this Candy Dale? Sounds like a name for a porn star.
Good point. And that is how SCOTUS is responding. They are obviously taking two paths on two issue and just letting it “sink in” via lower Court rulings.
1. When they struck down DOMA and took a hands off approach to Full Faith and Credit etc, it is clear that it is just a matter of time before “Gay Marriage” is the law of the land and it may not be outlawed.
2. 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS has let several Cir Court decisions stand that permit a State to limit gun ownership to in home protection only. Now while it appears it will leave this to the States, it is clear they do not think that the 2nd Amendment extends to anything more than home defense and hunting.
The world in which we find ourselves. I’m glad I’m quite old.
In 20 years you will be able to marry a guppy.
Pray for America.
Sure they do. 10th Amendment.
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale
Ha! You have excellent taste.
Although having the right to do something isn’t a guarantee that one will actually have the opportunity to do so. We’ve certainly seen that in recent years, having the right to vote doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any candidates worth voting for...
No, I am pretty sure liberals have determined that the full force of government must be brought to bear in these matters.
Black people, homosexuals and other special interest groups all get immediate government actions/programs/heaven and earth moved when they have new ‘rights’ discovered and established, so I want a redhead Japanese nympho built like Tawney was in 87. And I want her N O W.
I have the right, therefor they best ensure that I get one.
Or they are racists.
Dyke with a personal agenda, more dykes for her.
Judges don’t have this kind of power unless they are allowed to by our gutless elected officials
These imperial courts need to be kneecapped
It’s another case of the federal judges uses the 14th amendment as a battering ram to destroy the 10th amendment or whatever law they want. A federal judge already had the gall to declare Utah’s own constitution unconstitutional because it supposedly “violated the 14th amendment.”
Basically the 14th amendment is being used to do whatever liberal federal judges want. They don’t give a rip about any of the rest.
They’ve been using it to protect Anchor babies or laws against them. It’s basically an amendment giving special rights to all depravities.
Voters in the Senate and House should have spoken in 2006 when we had a chance at a Constitutional Amendment in the US Constitution to define marriage as between one man and won woman, but many on this forum spoke against it. Many said these amendments and laws were safe. oops.
Marriage licenses were originally issued because people wanted to “intermarry”... that is to say, marriage between the races.
Marriage has always been between man and woman (or women).
The left achieves their agenda by altering the meaning of words, and then screaming discrimination.
For a long time, it was illegal for a white to marry a black.
Likewise I believe a white to marry a Chinese person.
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.