Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Back in 1924, Congress passed a bill that mandated the states to issue birth, death and marriage certificates. President Coolidge signed it into law.
The prime mover for this bill was the Federal Reserve. (Please don't ask me why because I have no idea.)
It was in a packet of bills connected to the Simpson Act, which closed the wide-open gates of immigration and established immigration quotas with biases for white, Northern European immigrants. (I don't understand the connection either.)
If you want to get government out of marriage, you need to get that law off the books first.
There's no timetable. Could be tomorrow, could be six months from now.
Marriage has been between only men and women only since the dawn of cilivilization, and for good reason.
Some men are attracted to underage boys. We don't let them marry.
Some men are attraced to underage girls. We don't let them marry.
Some people are attracted to more than one person. We only allow them to marry one person.
Attraction is not a license to marry.
We need to remove these judicial savages from the bench.
Actually DaveyB was correct in a sense. The amendment was first tossed by a state trial judge, later affirmed by the Col. S. Ct. and ultimately affirmed by the USSC.
I was just going to say the same thing about gay marriage---
I think that it has gotten to the point that the people of the United States should get to choose---and the states that have actually allowed their residents to vote, have all voted AGAINST gay marriage, therefore, the activist groups, the judges, the teachers, the Hollywood community, etc, that seem to want to change the CULTURE because they cant change the LAW, is wrong---
There is another thread on FR today that is about the Pediatric Association has said that they cannot assert that children raised in gay homes would grow up emotionally or physically as normal as they would in a "normal" marriage---
In that article they list all of the physical and emotional difficulties that homosexuals have and that would have an impact on children---
Considering our children ARE the future of America, then that should be enough evidence to thwart any attempt to make gay marriages "legal" in any way!!!
Too many judges are striking down too many laws enacted by people's elected representatives.
We are devolving into a judicial tyranny.
We need to impeach judges and impeach often if this nation is to have any chance of surviving.
I understood that. Proposition 22 was an initiative statute. The question was one of legal principle.
but theoretically it would be within the purview of a state judge to overrule a provision of a state constitution based on the U.S. Constitution (assuming that the judge sta on a court of general jurisdiction).
Upon what authority?
I am embarassed to say I live in this state.
Correct. Is polygamy not biblical and historical at least? You can make that denial of polygamy is a denial of religous rights to Muslims and Mormons and tribal traditons more so than gay marriage is.
We have reached this point partly due to the fact that many "CONSERVATIVES" have been working against us on the Constitutional Ammendment making mariage between 1 man and 1 woman. We could have stopped this fiasco if we worked together to pass that in the last congress... Maybe this will wake some folks up.
FReegards,
David
Waitaminute, hold up here. While I support the "defense of Marraige" Constitutional amendments, I don't think judicial review of a statute "stunning." The operative phrase is, "tyrrany of the majority." Remember all the Founders' warnings against direct democracy?
That is why Constitutional amendments are the way to go - they are the rules, and they tend to require very serious consideration by the voters.
A state consitutional provision which is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for instance, could be declared unconstitutional by a state judge. A state judge has as much power to rule based upon the U.S. Constitution as a federal judge does.
A state consitutional provision which is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, for instance, could be declared unconstitutional by a state judge. A state judge has as much power to rule based upon the U.S. Constitution as a federal judge does.
oops
The fact is that homosexuality has existed as long as (and probably longer) than organized, religious, marriage. I am not trying to equate a civil union with marriage in a church. What additional civil rights or civil benefits are conveyed upon someone who is married in a church? None. The benefits of a religious marriage are confined, properly I believe, within the applicable religion. Marriage has been a religious ceremony since the dawn of religion, so should we strike down all civil marriages between heterosexual men and women because they dilute the "original meaning" of marriage?
I am talking specifically about the civil benefits conferred upon the union, such as presumed inheritance, the right to make medical decisions for your loved one, the tax benefits, etc. And what would come with this, for those who take it lightly, would be divorce, alimony, child support, etc that right now, these individuals don't have to worry about.
As for the other scenarios you posted, I don't really think those need addressing, they are flame bait, and are off the point anyway. (in my opinion) Thank you for the opportunity to express my views in a cordial discourse.
>"It appears that no rational purpose exists....
So tell us, Mr. Justice Kramer, how does it appear to you when you see two fudge packers sitting in a movie, about two rows in front of your children, necking throughout the movie.
Oh, You're from San Francisco? You and your "domestic partner", Bruce, don't have any children.
I see.
Why don't you just rule that human reproductive biology is unconstitutional and demand that God let the two of you make a baby!
One question:
Where would it come out?
No rational basis?
Judge Kramer is a liar and worse a liar about the law.
The 11th has had a federal judge uphold the rational basis test for the DOMA.
This only proves the Federal Marriage Amendment is needed to take this once and for all out of the hands of ALL judges whatever the rank.
Otherwise we will have to put up with these little crackpots all over the nation. Rulings like this mean we also have to outlaw civil unions for homosexuasl because judges will bypass constitutions to allow for these BS civil union marriage lite frauds.
Folks focus, we need a FEDERAL solution now. This is a FEDERAL issue.
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.