Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge strikes down Oregon's ban on gay marriage
Fox News ^ | 5/19/2014 | Fox News

Posted on 05/19/2014 12:28:06 PM PDT by freedumb2003

Edited on 05/19/2014 12:31:07 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

A federal judge has struck down Oregon's same-sex marriage ban, saying it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane threw out the voter-approved ban Monday.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: catholic; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; michaelmcshane; oregon; ruling; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last
To: Steely Tom

All we need is 38 states to approve Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments tm, and all our problems are solved. No, no, no, a judge can’t rule the amendments unconstitutional, because the amendments will say they can’t.


41 posted on 05/19/2014 1:29:33 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“Why vote when you can have one leftist judge overrule an entire state?”

And when that leftist judge is a fag himself you have all angles covered.


42 posted on 05/19/2014 1:30:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

But he won’t be removed by the legislature. So what should be done since that is a nonstarter?


43 posted on 05/19/2014 1:32:10 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Republican appointed judges never do that.


44 posted on 05/19/2014 1:34:38 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced earlier this year that she wouldn’t defend the law because it violates federal equal-rights protections as interpreted by last year’s Supreme Court decision.

This isn't really all the judges fault.

It's not hard for a judge to make a decision in favor of one side, when the other side refuses to even show up to present a defense of the law.

That seems to be the case in many of these being overturned

45 posted on 05/19/2014 1:41:35 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MacNaughton

Would be interesting to see how many of those states have AGs that refused to defend the State Law, as was the case in this one


46 posted on 05/19/2014 1:43:43 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
So much for Rand Paul’s States Rights approach to solving this problem.

Rand Paul has called for an end to opposing gay marriage, and social issues in general, including abortion.

He wants us to make him president, where he would oversee federal law and regulations about these issues at the federal level, for instance gay marriage in the military, federal employment, and immigration, and as we can see already, how he would use the presidential soapbox to influence public opinion, already he is working on conservatives to accept the left's vision.

47 posted on 05/19/2014 1:45:32 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
There has always been a Justice of the Peace type option for the non-religious. You pointed out several examples yourself even if the specific people involved were religious.

There is also a large difference between the government as a party to a marriage contract as in the case of bonds, banns, etc. and the government as the sole legitimate recorder of marriages as we have now. Yeah, I know, churches still perform and record marriages, but they have no legal force other than as back-up evidence to the government records.

This will at least be the case until some judge declares a Muslim marriage to four wives to be a civil right under Sharia law. And it is only a matter of time before it is coming once fudgepacker marriage is declared co-equal.

What legal basis is there to stop now?

48 posted on 05/19/2014 1:46:02 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Here is an undesputable fact. If Barry Bathhouse has appointed a Federal judge he has told that federal judge to strike down any state constitutional bans on sodomite “marriage”. If the state attorney general is a democrat he has also been told not to enforce any state constitutional ban if it is challenged in court. Only a few State AGs that are democrats have the integrity and decency to fight for the people and uphold their oath of office. 99% cave toObama. That is exactly what happened in California when Prop 8 was appealed to the US Supreme Court. Governor Ahnuld, and Attorney Gen Jerry Brown refused to represent the people. They hung them out to dry and the Supreme Court would not hear the case. So the queer judge that struck down the will of the people got his way and millions and millions of Californians that had voted down homo “marriage” were disenfranchised. Their vote meant noting. Told to move one, one queer judge has more right than they do. Votes mean nothing in the country anymore. The crooked Supreme Court will always side with a judge over the people.
Today the democrat State Attorney General in Oregon said he would not fight for the people over this radical judge. In otherwords democrats could care less what a law says. They do what they feel like doing and to hell with the people or anyone else. They get their marching orders from the fraud in chief, who refuses to obey the laws of the land each and every day, with an assist from his partner in crime Eric Holder.


49 posted on 05/19/2014 1:47:34 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Next to come will be horse breeders. There’s a lot of horses in Oregon and if the judge just happens to be a horse breeder and wants to marry that pretty little filly he’s been eye-balling, he will rule that it’s perfectly legal for anyone to marry a horse.

Folks it’s coming. If marriage is not the union of one man and one woman, then it’s nothing. Anything goes. Marry your chickens, a half dozen goats, your sister, your buick, your rabbit. Hell, marry anything you want to marry. Who’s to tell you no?


50 posted on 05/19/2014 1:52:25 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died;we should thank God that such men lived" ~ Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

What is so stupid about this is that it’s important to the nation that there is huge difference between (1) penis + vagina, (2) penis + penis + anus, and (3) vagina + vagina + ?.

It amazes me that this isn’t clear as a bell that #1 is light-years different than 2 & 3.

It is far better to assign a new word/phrase to 2 & 3 because it doesn’t approach the impact on the society as does #1. Instead, what will happen is that in the next decade or so, because 1 is so radically different that they’ll assign a new word to 1, so it can be distinguished from 2&3.

A community has an interest in babies. It doesn’t have an interest in who’s in heart-fluttering love/lust with whomever.


51 posted on 05/19/2014 1:53:08 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Let’s go visit and bring a rope.


52 posted on 05/19/2014 2:00:31 PM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

There has never been a time when marriage was not legal or illegal, even when Islam or the Pope is the law on marriage.

I don’t know that there has always been a justice of the peace type option for the non-religious to meet a cultures legal marriage requirements, and don’t recall saying that, unless you mean only in America.

You continue with your push for Mosques and Mormons, and cults, and gay churches to be able to tell our nation what it’s marriage laws are.

You can have your own version of marriage, and keep it within your own religion, but you can’t force the U.S. Army, and federal and state government recognize your 20 wives.

By the way, you could take a minute to acknowledge that you were wrong about marriage licenses, I hope that fake history doesn’t continue to get posted.


53 posted on 05/19/2014 2:02:45 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

This road is taking us to the government regulation of religion in a back door way.

Eventully those religions that neither respect homosexuality or gay marriage will be outlawed and religions will be required to conform to the standards of the state on sexuality.

Its the indirect method to the USSR and Nazi Germany’s standards on religion.


54 posted on 05/19/2014 2:05:47 PM PDT by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Well said.

Yes, we’ve seen this tactic, in which states get sued over their definition of marriage, and liberal state officials decide not to defend the law in court.

I am concerned about how liberals have been shoving homosexual marriage down our throats, aside from the fact of homosexual marriage. I am very concerned about the misuse of the courts and ignoring basic legal processes, in their zeal to impose homosexual marriage on America.

If there were such a groundswell for homosexual marriage, state after state would be voting to allow it, rather than state after state having voted to define marriage in the traditional manner.

I seriously wonder how liberals would react if, there were lawsuits over some issue they favored. How would they react if their public officials simply decide not to defend the law. Among other things, they would scream bloody murder about lack of due process.

But for some reason, the cause of homosexual marriage is so special, that liberals have decided that we can’t defend marriage and family law in court.

I notice the liberals aren’t out there trying to change these laws, through the legislative process. Instead, they decided to force it on us through the courts.

I want to be intellectually honest, in that, I wouldn’t be nearly so critical of the liberals on the marriage issue, if they were working through the political process, rather than forcing it down our throats in court rulings.


55 posted on 05/19/2014 2:06:04 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You can have your own version of marriage, and keep it within your own religion, but you can’t force the U.S. Army, and federal and state government recognize your 20 wives.

Stop making it personal. I am not advocating any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that if one dictator in a judicial robe can force us to recognize gay marriage, they can force us to recognize any other format.

Not just polygamy, but especially polygamy because it has far more legal precedent in human history.

56 posted on 05/19/2014 2:09:27 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
Thank you. That is precisely my point in post #56. But some people are too dense to see it, or refuse to do so.

They are more worried about some phantom boogeyman like Mormons, who aren't our enemies, than fascists, Islamonazis and Communists who are.

57 posted on 05/19/2014 2:13:01 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

” Republican appointed judges never do that. “

Roberts, cough cough, Obamacare, Cough Cough....


58 posted on 05/19/2014 2:14:05 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

How is it unconstitutional? The constitution says nothing about requirements for marriage. That is left to the States. I would like this judge to tell me where all this is spelled out in the Constitution. I don’t see it.


59 posted on 05/19/2014 2:15:37 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

That wasn’t “personal”, I didn’t mean you literally, didn’t you see the part about the 20 wives?

“”There is also a large difference between the government as a party to a marriage contract as in the case of bonds, banns, etc. and the government as the sole legitimate recorder of marriages as we have now. Yeah, I know, churches still perform and record marriages, but they have no legal force other than as back-up evidence to the government records.
This will at least be the case until some judge declares a Muslim marriage to four wives to be a civil right under Sharia law. And it is only a matter of time before it is coming once fudgepacker marriage is declared co-equal.
What legal basis is there to stop now?””

That sure looks like a call to remove any definition of marriage in law, and just let religions make the laws, to me.

Which is silly, marriage has always had to be legal, or not legal, even common-law marriage has to be legal, or not legal, at both the state and federal levels, and if you don’t care about legal recognition, then don’t worry about it, just have your own private “marriage”.

Private views on marriage are still available to everyone and always have been, it is in the legal realm where the rest of us start really paying attention, or if your mate/mates decide they want to divide property and children.


60 posted on 05/19/2014 2:18:35 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson