Posted on 08/04/2014 1:34:57 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Woman seeking dissolution of Vermont civil union not recognized in Fla. ....Because civil unions can only be dissolved when both individuals sign the requisite forms, Brassner sought to find Lade so that she can be married.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at local10.com ...
These judges are out of control.
The Miami media is jumping for joy over this, the third ruling in just a few weeks by SINGLE JUDGES who look to overturn a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT of the voters of the state of Florida.
The 14th amendment right of equal protection is being denied to the majority of voters who chose to affirm that marriage is what it has always been: a man and a woman.
But, the media in Miami chooses to ignore the truth and side with the lawless judges, just like the media sides with lawless Obama.
Is a Ban on selling contaminated food Unconstitutional ?
This county judge is lawless. Marriage is defined in Florida’s Constituion: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Article 1, Section 27
Next agenda up for homos: age of consent lowered to 5 years of age (lower if they can get it).
Not yet, but apparently it IS unconstitutional to protect women getting abortions by making sure their doctors (term used loosely) have admitting privileges at a local hospital. So your access to unsafe abortions is protected.
Yes, the world is completely upside down.
Sooner or later the population will realize that we’re dancing to the tune of roughly 1-2% of the population.
When that happens, we can tell them to shove it up their...oh...forgot.....
Nope. Won’t happen. There has been a titanic shift on this issue. The rest of the population does not, and will not, think like us. We are going this one alone.
The public is not going to “wake up”. They don’t care how small the percentage is. The Constitutional interpretation of this issue has shifted radically across all political spectrums of Judges.
I’ve got no problem fighting a losing battle. Done that in Court more than once. I just hate that this issue is one.
Great!
Apparently this is the same judge who had his own wife testify in his court and was officially reprimanded for it.
Methinks impeachment is in order ala’ Alcee Hastings.
So much for the law of the land/We the People thingy. Judges now rule this country, from the bench.
Text
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
How can a County judge overturn a State law?
Voters do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "rights." So the states are actually free make laws which discriminate against such "rights," as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Voters further do not understand that, regardless of politically correct, pro-gay interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment (14A), justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had clarified that the amendment did not add new rights to the constitution, it only strengethened existing enumerated rights.
“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.
Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay "rights," such rights don't exist regardless of 14A. What's going on is that activist judges are taking advantage of widespread ignorance of the Constitution by wrongly legislating such rights from the bench.
Ignore post 7. and the poster thereof.
thank you.
another thread/site said there is a public call in town hall where the layers for the plaintiff in three counties will be outlining the battle plan and how to force the FL SC to dump the florida constitution.
I hope lefty-pro-homosexual marriage advocates are for closing the border and deportation of all these newly arrived ‘undocumented immigrants’.
These future Democrat voters as well as future(Hispanic/Islamic) DEMOCRAT leaders ARE NOT very fond of homosexuals
This standard of logic is infantile and insane.
There is no goddamn right to marry in either the US Constitution or the Fl Constitution.
so they go judge shopping again.
Agree, and if it were unconstitutional then so should marrying anything or marrying as many people as one wants.
Now has our side even bothered to argue that to these activist judges the homosexuals seek when they go judge shopping?
I have yet not got an answer to where in the Federal constitution is states you have a constitutional right to marry anyway, and yet in our state the Fl constitution does mention exactly what marriage is.
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.