I think they mean “after single federal judge overrules the votes of the people, for the oligarchy trumps the democracy.”
Well I hate to tell you judge but brothers and sisters have been marrying in your state long before there ever was same sex marriage and you are a fitting example of what it produces...
Arkansas didn’t “allow” it, some goofyass, activist “judge” did.
It’s always a judge making the gay laws now, isn’t it?
Would that be considered a "baited field?"
Its a pretty sad state of affairs in this country when some activist judge can overrule the will of the people. What a joke.
Most frightening aspect of this (and other cases) is how much power judges have and they can make laws. I recall on FR many years ago mention of a judge in Arizona who made decisions regarding school budgets. Is there any area of our lives that the judges cannot touch?
If there were sanity, the clerk who was issuing these licenses would have been firebombed by an angry mob by now.
Any “state” judge that goes against a properly voted referedum should be immediately impeached and removed from the bench by the legislature and governor. Any “federal” judge that does so should be ordered arrested by the governor and escorted to the border of the state and told to never return - subject to immediate arrest and permanent detention without trial. The federal ruling should then be ignored.
It is REALLY time to shut down these idiot despots in robes.
Also, any future “landmark” rulings of the SCOTUS - which have the effect of amending the COTUS - should require being upheld by 3/4th of State Legislatures; just like any amendment to the COTUS.
It is fully time to put judges on a lease and limit their powers.
Because some people in government are now hostile to marriage as God defined it, in order to protect godly marriage we must remove the power of the State to define and regulate marriage. Then anyone will be perfectly free to enter into whatever relationship they want. However, they will not be able to call upon the police power of the state to force me to recognize a “marriage” that I know is theologically illegitimate and morally repugnant.
If we remove government from marriage and return it to the private sphere where it came from, lesbians can still marry each other, but they won’t be able to use government to force me to sell them wedding cake or artfully photograph their “marriage”. They will be free to do as they please without being able to coerce anyone else about their private affair.
But this was never really about marriage. For homosexuals it was social engineering and payback. They could bust marriage as God defined it, they could rub Christianity’s nose in it, they could punish people who objected and they could force anyone who was too vocal to shut up. But what they really want is approval, and it just galls them that a lot of people will never give it to them.
With all due respect to patriots in Arkansas, Arkansas parents are evidently not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution, particularly the reason for enumerated constitutional rights and 10th Amendment protected state powers. If Arkansas parents were doing their duty to make sure that the children were being taught these things, then more people in Arkansas would know the following concerning the constitutionally indefensible decision by this activist judge.
PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause by pro-gay activist judges aside, please consider the following. Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, not only are such "rights" not expressly protected by the Constitution, but the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues, gay marriage in this example, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge express constitutional protections.
Regarding how to deal with activist judges, Arkansas voters, and voters in all other states, need to work with their state lawmakers to make judicial watchdog laws which do the following. Such laws should require state judges to promptly, clearly and publicly specify which constitutional clauses they base any case decision on, noting the Constitution's silence about an issue when appropriate, or to face punitive consequences for failing to do so.
Cuz a judge says so.
FMCDH(BITS)