Easy to say “Not ripe for disposition.”
Rob Portman will attend this activist pr4ck’s birthday party no doubt. So sick of the sodomy celebration and baby killing that goes on in this once great nation.
EXACTLY what was intended when the “very clever law clerks” described by Mark Levin wrote the majority SCOTUS decision.
Any law restricting gay marriage was defined as prima facie bigotry. Lower courts will have no choice but to take their cues from that.
All the damage, none of the fingerprints.
Good, so concealed carry reciprocity is also automatically mandated along with this decision.
Obama is king.
Judges form the aristocracy, and rule over fiefdoms formally known as states.
US Senators form a leisure class of gentlemen, from whom nothing is expected.
I believe that Universities and “non-profits” now fill a role that once was filled by churches and monasteries back in the first feudal age. They pay no taxes, they own great stretches of real estate, they support large numbers of people directly, and they possess great wealth (what’s Harvard’s endowment??). They perform a “social service” and provide for the salvation, of sorts, of the people who provide money— Salvation being defined as future employability and/or buttressed self-image that you are “a good guy” with correct views.
And the rest of us labor is the fields, lamenting our servitude to distant tyrants.
The first Feudal Age at least had the concept of Chivalry. This second Feudal Age has the concept of Kim Kardashian.
Only if MD honors my CCW.
Federal Marriage Amendment and impeach overreaching judges.
Federal Marriage Amendment and impeach overreaching judges.
This judge is wrong! Everyone knows what marriage is and what the homosexuals are after, to break down marriage so that they are not looked down on. This judge knows it to and is looking to climb on the Democratic ladder to a new appointment to a higher office!
Jus tell the fed judge to go to hell, challenge the SOB... the feds cannot simply walk all over states rights.
Why is a federal judge trying to enforce State law?
Read the Consitution. Art. IV has the full faith and credit clause.
“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.”
Hard to disagree that marriage is a contract which each state records. This is the slippery slope that many predicted and once DOMA is invalidated by judicial ruling then Congress is taken out of the equation.
I am a conservative who thought DOMA was unconstitutional because it put the federal government in the role of - in effect - nationalizing marriage law. For the same reason, I would oppose the Supreme Court declaring it illegal for a state to ban gay marriage. It is part of our tradition as a nation that a valid marriage in one state must be recognized by other states - that is one reason that so many marriages were done in Vegas. So I think this court ruling was correct.
Just as well all predicted...
Before I go any further, a good case to study concerning the states being able to discriminate against citizens based on criteria not expressly protected by the Constitution is Minor v. Happersett.
Minor v. Happerset
The Minor case reflects on gay marriage because the Supreme Court disagreed with Virginia Minor's argument that her citizenship automatically gave her the right to vote. But the Court argued that the Constitution didn't protect voting rights on the basis of sex regardless of the equal protections clause of 14A. The states subsequently ratified the Constitution with the 19th Amendment to allow women to vote.
Also regarding the Minor case, note that activist justices and activist judges in California wrongly ingored Minor v. Happerset as it related to 14A's equal protections clause with respect to abusing judicial power to promote gay marriage.
Also, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) has been mentioned, let's consider how that clause is being abused to promote so-called gay rights. Note that before Congress established constitutonally indefensible national drinking age law, for example, that a 19 year old living in a state where legal drinking age was 19 could not vacation in a state where drinking age was 21 and buy booze on the basis of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The only thing that the Full Faith Clause required the vacation state to do was to acknowledge that the person trying to buy booze was legally 19 years old according to the official records of the person's home state.
Likewise, the only thing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires any state which has laws which discriminate against gay marriage is to acknowledge is that such people are legally married imo. Otherwise, since gay rights are not a constitutionally enumerated protection regardless of PC interpretations of 14A, just as the states could prohibit women from voting before the Constitution was amended to protect voting rights on the basis of sex, the states can reasonably discriminate against gay marriage.
Finally, I have heard that Texas has a law which prohibits gay marriage partners from divorcing. While some people think that this is a meaningless law, I suspect that Texas lawmakers are trying to prohibit same-sex friends from getting married as a fad.
Will Ohio also honor sates prohibitions on same sex marriage? Seems like goose and gander, it would be queer to only have tolerance run one direction.
"Yes, I recognize the fact that you are married in Maryland."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1298--1307The Full Faith Clause means that the states essentially have to respect the legal records of another state. But where the pro-gay movement is getting the wires crossed with repect to 14A's Equal Protections Clause is that only constitutionally express protections can prohibit a state from discriminating against a person regardless of that person's legal information imo.
There's a reason kids today still use phrases like, "That's so gay," as a deragatory comment. Kids understand naturally, instinctively, that there is just something sick about a man pushing a penis into another man's anus full of turd. It's one of those things nobody needs to teach, and it is why homos instinctively feel ashamed of what they are and what they do, and why they suffer the tears of a clown as they march with fake smiles in fake "pride" parades.
It's like the communist rats thinking they can create what Austrian economists called "the socialist man". It cannot be done because it is simply antithetical to human nature. It's the same with homosexuality - - it will always give normal people the creeps, and there's nothing the scum can do about it.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!