Courts have ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage in Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan and just yesterday, Oregon are unconstitutional.
We could just let our 2-3,000 Black-Robed Masters tell us how it's going to be.
Oh, wait - that's how it is, already...
Ugh. That makes me ill......
Funny these “Federal” judges haven’t ruled Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
F U B O!
The parasitic financial elite establishment has owned our Judiciary for a long time.
Too bad for us, the Rockys want perversion. So they’re forcing it on all Americans, as well as the rest of the world.
Until these financial elite parasites face prosecution and just punishment for their treason, the governments that are playing host to them will be used against righteousness and promote evil.
another moderate/lib judge appointed by our side.
Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.
Oh, I see. Now we have rule by judges and not the people? These judges are out of bounds and need to be tarred and feathered and kicked out on their asses.
Another Bush appointee. Its starting to be a really close race between him and Obama as to who’s helped liberalism more.
We really need the states to say NO! Stand up to FedZilla.
The people in the states will support it. C’mon states - do it!
Time to revoke his ruling and BAN U.S. District Judge John E. Jones .... PERMANENTLY !
Just because a “ban” is unconstitutional, it does not make gay “marriage” legal, right?
Judges were given no such power in the constitution, so this ruling is also unconstitutional.
I know. We have indeed lost this one. It’s only a matter of time before SCOTUS expands it nationwide. They are first letting the District and Cir courts pick it off one at a time.
It is the states that have sovereignty over the issue of marriage. This judge has breached the Constitution and is a traitor to the constitution and should be treated as such.
As mentioned in related threads concerning constitutionally unprotected gay marriage and the Equal Protections Clause, please consider the following.
Politically correct, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause by activist judges aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So regardless that activist judges are saying that anti-gay marriage state laws are unconstitutonal, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay marriage as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights imo.
A key Supreme Court case which clearly indicates that the states are free to discriminate on the basis of sex regardless of the Equal Protections Clause is Minor v. Happersett. In that case Virginia Minor used the Equal Protections Clause to argue that her citizenship gave her the right to vote regardless that she was a woman.
However, the Court did not buy her argument but clarified that the 14th Amendment did not add new rights to the Constitution, that it only strengthened existing protections.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And since the states hadn't amended the Constitution to expressly protect woman sufferage before the 14th Amendment was ratifed, women still didn't have the right to vote after 14A was ratified regardless of the Equal Protections Clause.
Note that the states subsequently ratified the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.
But it remains that the states have never amended the Constituiton to expressly protect gay agenda issues, including gay marriage.
What patriots need to do stop activist judges in their tracks with respect to legislating from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to promptly, clearly and publicly specify any constitutional clauses to substantiate their decisions. And if the Constitution is silent about a particular issue, then judges need to clarify that it is a 10th Amendment-protected issue. And if the states don't like what the Constitution says then they can always exercise their unique, constitutional Article V option to amend it.
Patriots also need to start making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, including the difference between legislative and judicial powers.
Given the SCOTUS ruling, I doubt any Federal judge is going to rule in favor of laws banning same-sex marriage.
To win this fight, we either need a Federal amendment. Or a change in SCOTUS or both.
Looks like this judge appointed by G. W. Bush and with his most famous ruling an anti-free speech one in my mind (The Dover Case) riddled with bitterness and hostility towards the religious people on a local school board, ruled true to form.
Please note that the listed handful of states is a far cry from the Constitution's Article V 3/4 supermajority of states required to amend the Constitution to constitutionally protect so-called gay rights."
Where in the Constitution is the guarantee of a marriage between two homosexuals? I’ve read the Constitution in and out and have not found it. I’m being facitious, obviously. Everybody has a right to marriage in the traditional sense, a sense that everyone understands, a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee the right to perverse sexual encounters. These judges are as perverse as the clowns who files suit!