One day a state governor is going to put these kinds of judges in jail and tell his clerks to ignore the scotus ruling.
The he will say if you want to enforce the ruling you better send troops.
Three of my professors at UD signed it, I am psyched!
Bravo!
So brave and wise people do still exist in our country.
There was no Federal Law passed to authorize queer marriage, so you can’t be guilty of violating the law!!!!
“Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative … power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”
Scalia is correct.
There are some states that are not issuing marriage licenses. Instead requiring the feds to do it. Similarly, divorces.
“A state judge in Alabama is arguing that since the U.S. Supreme Court – a branch of the federal government – created “same-sex marriage,” Washington can just go ahead and administer the licenses.”
That’s correct.
The federal government created the law.
Let the federal government enforce the law.
But this process is way out of control...
1. The supreme court created a law.
[Judicial Branch created a law.]
2. The federal court system has to enforce the law.
[Judicial Branch enforces the law.]
I don’t think this is the way it supposed to work!!!
Sanctuary cities for traditional marriage.
Of-interest SCOTUS ping
This was a hot button subject recently in our local paper. I argued something similar to what these law experts have said.
Basically the 5 Supremes rendered a majority “opinion” on same sex marriage. It is only their “opinion” and therefor not binding as the law of the land. It still needs to go through the process in Congress and be signed by the President to become law. I doubt it could be done right now but with a very liberal Congress and Prez like in 2009/2010 it might fly.
It could still be argued that it went against the Constitution and would take a Constitutional Amendment to become the law of the land.
Changing something so basic to human existence in such a willy nilly way without anything in our guiding documents to back it up is unacceptable.
I didn’t have any objection to anyone getting a legal union and recognized by the state but it could not be called ‘marriage’ as that word and what it implies is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. I actually don’t care if some sick perv wants to be in a legal union with his cats as long as no animal abuse happens.
It should be interesting to see how all this washes out. I think some courageous senators and reps need to take this issue up so it can be settled one way or the other and if so; in what way.
I suggested gays use the word ‘squeegie’ in place of ‘marriage’ and ‘squeezer’ and ‘squeezie’ in place of husband and wife. Just a suggestion but I do think it would satisfy most the objections because then society in general would know we weren’t talking about a traditional marriage and in fact a legal union not recognized by the church. A win win I think.
The gays in our society should be able to come up with a set of words just for them. They did, after all, hijack the word ‘gay’.
bookmark
Brave men and women. In many quarters such opinions are career suicide, especially academia. But we need people like this to stand up for the right.
Brave men and women. In many quarters such opinions are career suicide, especially academia. But we need people like this to stand up for the right.
Unfortunately the existence of a Constitution of Civil Government depends upon our ability to stop the court from doing what it has done Oberfell v. Hodges among many other cases in which entirely new law that directly contradicts hundreds of years of practice, understanding, written text, and even the court’s own Precedence was imposed.
If we are to allow the Federal employees to do this we don’t have a republic with the rule of law, but rather simply the rule of those men. Americans need to be informed regardless of their position on the issue of the case, law must be made by the people Not the Federal Employees in black robes or there is No law.