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
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.....
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.
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.
This is the problem with Marriage legislation, once you ban Gay Marriage they can easily overturn it in court.
Well, we in broward get to vote the judges IN or OUT. And voting day is coming.
The judge literally ruled the constitution was unconstitutional. This was a state judge.
This takes things to an entirely different level with regard to judicial activism. It’s not even legislating from the bench, as not even a legislature can legally pass legislation opposing the constitution. The judge is literally acting as dictator, and this goes well beyond the underlying issue being ruled on as far as bad precedent.
I refuse to comply - marriage is already defined as one man and one woman - any other combo is not marriage .
In fact, I refuse to comply with any regulation, law or whim this administration has decreed - insert raspberry here
-
- Chief Justice John Roberts flamboyant nephew perhaps?
-