I wonder on what basis any sexual laws are still on the books?
This may be the nightmare case. From Idaho, to the 9th Circuit and then on to Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Bryer at the Supreme Court.
This could be the case that is used to destroy traditional marriage not only in Idaho, but in every state.
Idaho would do us a favor if they were to not rush this case to the 9th Circuit.
There was a ban? Don’t bans carry a penalty for those who violate the ban? I just thought that the law provided a legal definition of marriage within the state.
Well, that explains it.
In fact, I see from another source that her full name is: Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale.
These things write themselves.
It seems these fascists can justify or outlaw anything that strikes their fancy.
The rule of law is dead in America, and the Constitution has been rendered little more than toilet paper.
And where are all the GOP leaders and their voices on this issue? The ones that always decry about judicial activism, whether on the floor of Congress, at political conventions, or in radio interviews? Have they all become such worthless cowards, unwilling to fully step up to the plate and say “NO!” to all this? Or, are they all like basically disingenous scumbags like Mitt Romney, who mumble about being personally being against fag-marriage, but quiety behind the scenes help facillitate it into existence?
Damn these bastards to hell.
Being from and living in Idaho...I will take every effort I can to get this judge OFF the bench....
“Candy” Dale... why not “Candy” ass? What a specious ruling.
There cannot be a “same sex” marriage, by definition. The state code defines marriage, clearly. They should ignore the ruling.
I'm only half kidding.
We need state governors with spines now.
“equal protection under the law”
the judge does not understand the meaning of the term as it is in the Constitution
it applies ONLY as the law is applicable to two people in the same manner and yet the law is not enforced or respected “equally” to all to whom that law applies
it does not mean that all laws are written to apply to all persons equally, which would mean the law cannot limit and define whom exactly meets any qualifying terms under the law, which is in fact done all the time in the law
the equal protection clause means only that under its own terms a law is applied equally without regard to race, creed or national origin; that neither law enforcement or the courts can fail to execute, or judge the laws execution, differently for some individuals because of their race, creed or national origin
that’s it
it does not mean that ANY definition of marriage is incompatible with the equal protection clause
it means that ANY definition of marriage cannot be applied differently due to race, creed or national origin - that’s all that “equal protection” protects