Hollywood's response....
Posted on 07/02/2014 8:25:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban was struck down Tuesday by a federal judge who ruled that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"In America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District Judge John Heyburn in Louisville argued.
The ruling follows similar decisions in Utah and Indiana where gay marriage bans were also dismissed.
In his decision, Heyburn stated that his ruling does not "diminish the freedom of others to any degree." There is an "utter lack of logical relation" between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and any legitimate state interest, he added.
He also stated that "same-sex couples' right to marry seems to be a uniquely 'free' constitutional right," Reuters reported.
The case dealt with claims brought by two gay couples from Louisville who were denied marriage licenses. Court documents noted that Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza have lived together for 34 years, while the other couple, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James, have been together for 10 years.
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced in a statement after the decision that his office will be launching an appeal.
"Now that Judge Heyburn has issued his opinion on this portion of the case, we will be appealing the decision so that the matter is fully before the Sixth Circuit, where these same issues from other states are already scheduled
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
What about polyamorous rights, eh judge? /s
When, exactly, did marriage become a constitutional right?
Tyranny of the minority. It is time for real change. Revolutionary change. Regime change.
Why don’t we just abolish state government? Judges seem to have all the answer. We don’t need no stinkin’ voting or state laws.
America is now ruled by judicial dictators.
A single Federal judge just denied the people of Kentucky the right to define marriage.
The US is no longer a country of “We The People”.
We are the subjects of an elite ruling class.
Can I also call him out, on the issue of religious issues?
There are many people, besides evangelical Christians and other strongly religious people, who believe that we should be able to define marriage as a man and a woman.
Just because the biggest support for traditional marriage is among people of faith, doesn’t mean that religious objections are the only objections to imposing homosexual marriage by court order.
Nor does it mean that only people of faith oppose homosexual marriage. I’m sure that there are many secular conservatives who also oppose imposition of homosexual marriage via court order.
What about the children, judge?
God is the ultimate judge — and yours will be perfect justice when you die.
Regarding the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protection's Clause, justices from the same generation that ratified the 14th Amendment had officially clarified that 14A did not add new constitutional protections, it only strengthed enumerated 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 have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, gay rights weren't constitutionally protected after 14A was ratified any more than before 14A was ratified.
In fact, the Supreme Court later warned against subjectively reading things into the Constitution.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
So what this misguided judge is unthinkingly arguing is that constitutionally unprotected gay "rights" trump constitutionally enumerated religious expression protections.
Actually, the judge must be a pro-gay activist, wrongly legislating gay rights from the bench like all the other judges are doing. And they are getting away with doing so because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught either how the Constitution works, or the difference between legislative and judicial powers.
Whats with the legislation from the bench with these asshole judges lately?
Mr JUdge, Meet God.
He designed the set.
He wrote the script.
He made you.
Just some idle thoughts
BUsh1 appointee 1992
I'm sorry, Judge; but, aren't "religious views" a 1st Amendment right. As in the "right to religious expression"? And "gay rights" is where in the Constitution? I suppose it would fall under "pursuit of happiness"; but, does "pursuit of happiness" trump the 1st amendment rights of free expression?
One thing we need to remember about the Supreme Court -— they are NOT SUPREME.
He’s wrong and he knows it.
Luther said exactly the same thing insisting that the Church should have no say about marriage. It's just another example "these sects working out the very logic of their ways" since churches all hopped on the contraception bandwagon in the 1930s.
If the sicko pos want “gay marriage” then just draw up some paper work contract and call it something else like __________ Partners. Fill in the blank.
Seriously, the terms gay marriage and traditional marriage are currently being used - not just marriage. So why pick the word marriage at all? Since the two are going to be delineated anyway, Pick some other word to describe their contract, and let a justice of the peace do the honors. Let the churches decide whether their clergy will be allowed to perform such ceremonies.
Gay couples can and some do establish a legal contract that delineates almost all the same rights as marriage, except spousal benefits at the workplace, and it's not called a marriage - it's called a contract.
For years, same sex issues were in the closet, and not spoken about, now you can't get them to shut up. I am fed up with 10% of the population deciding and trying to impose how the other 90% have to live,speak, worship, and think.
Are gay “rights” now in the penumbra to the Living Constitution? I thought that was the only thing that could trump the Bill of Rights, and the free exercise of religion at least used to be in the Bill of Rights.
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.