Posted on 10/06/2014 7:07:01 AM PDT by GIdget2004
he Supreme Court has turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.
The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states should be able to get married in short order.
That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.
But the justices have left unresolved for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
The Constitution itself delegates the authority to amend. And that authority was granted to the states through their legislatures. The state of Louisiana ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, and by doing so acknowledged a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution itself.
> “Plessy v. Ferguson was not argued as a Tenth Amendment issue”
You’re wrong on that. It was argued from the state side as a 10th Amendment issue.
“Arguments in favor of the Separate Car Act: The act does not violate the 13th Amendment; that amendment was created to end slavery and forced servitude, and courts in the past have recognized that separate accommodations do not amount to either. Also, since the act applies equally to blacks and to whites, and requires equal accommodations for both, it is not discriminatory and does not violate the 14th Amendment. The Separate Car Act is a reasonable and justified exercise of Louisiana police power—***granted through the 10th Amendment to the Constitution***—to ensure security and social order.”
http://ethanlewis.org/history/downloads/plessy.pdf
Your original post implied a Marriage Amendment would not hold up in the same manner as Tenth Amendment cases ostensibly as an attempt to discourage or to buttress wishful thinking into your homosexual ring.
By discussing 14th Amendment concerns you show that you equate homosexual rights with civil rights of blacks. This is the tactic used by the Left but which is rejected by blacks themselves.
The fact is that seeking protection under the 14th Amendment is a ploy by homosexual fascists to fold themselves in with the long struggle by Black Americans. And Black Americans are not welcoming them to do so. In fact Black Americans have explicitly and aggressively expressed that homosexuals are NOT welcome to seek cover under amendments that were results of their long struggle. Homosexuals never experienced what Black Americans experienced.
Make no mistake, this will be a huge money maker for lawyers. Justice has nothing to do with the ruling.
If the 5th or 11th Circuit rules against gay marriage on a similar case, SCOTUS may hear the case.
Otherwise, the battle may be lost.
SCOTUS will vote to redefine marriage. Kennedy will join with the far-left 4. They are only doing a favor to Roberts by not taking it up now.
Neither courts, nor states, nor any man or woman, has legitimate authority to define marriage. God made marriage, and He defined it. Period. Sadly, many who are ostensibly on “our side” in this fight don’t understand this simple fact, and are therefore playing right into the hands of those who are intent on destroying the moral basis for, and fabric of, the United States of America. Pay close attention to what even your ‘conservative” political “heroes” are saying folks. Beware.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
— Mark 10:9
Although what you say is true, you miss an important point.
Government has encroached on the religious institution of ‘marriage’ for the purpose of ensuring contractual obligations to children and to avoid health defects (blood types). But government always stopped at the water’s edge of religious rights under the 1st Amendment until now when 14th Amendment considerations have turned the intent of that amendment to encompass same sex marriage.
The encroachment is now upon the Church; that’s the point you need to accept. You may not like it but it is what it is.
To stop the encroachment and its attack on the Church requires not only a clear definition of terms but a definition that is carved into the Constitution in the form of a Marriage Amendment with protective clauses that bar other Amendments from weakening it.
I support such an Amendment, even though in a sane world one would not be needed.
And yet, the courts are still not redefining the institution of marriage. It is impossible for them to do so, because God defined it, from the very beginning of the creation. All they are doing, in fact, is destroying their own credibility and the foundations of the institutions they represent. They are not defenders of fairness, justice and equality, as they would have you believe. No. They are destroyers, of themselves and anyone who is foolish enough to go along with them.
I used to think the same that such an amendment should never be needed.
A Marriage Amendment is a sign for posterity that America at one time had to go to an extreme in organizing against perversity to the extent of carving protections in its Constitution.
For hundreds of years Americans had the good sense to never consider what is now happening. But today this is brought as a targeted effort by the Left and by homosexual fascists to force its will against the social mores and traditions of American families and ultimately the Church. The attack is carried out on a perverse basis in the 14th Amendment.
Unfortunately, there is no other realistic or effective means to stop this attack except by a process of amending the Constitution.
A Marriage Amendment once ratified will have far reaching ramifications beyond stopping the normalization of perversity. It will call on future courts to consider the social mores and traditions of Americans and further to the long established tenets of human history and natural law. Hence, it will have a long term beneficial effect on courts.
When folks warned that the only way to stop purple mafia was Federal Marriage Amendment, people scoffed. So much for that now.
Folks are coming around now that they have seen how persons and businesses are shut down and prosecuted when they do not bow down to the demands of homosexuals.
Sometimes it just takes awhile for the process to unfold and see what’s inside.
Uh no, not even close. Traditional marriage laws do not violate equal protection since they do not take into account the sexual preference of those wishing to marry. Thus as a male, the prohibition for me to marry another man applies regardless of my sexual preference.
The current spate of judicial activism that is overturning established state law makes a mockery of the Constitution. And passage of another Amendment isn't going to stop it. These judges are already showing that they do not give a damn about what the Constitution says.
I don’t disagree.
However, getting an Amendment, when the GOP is controlled by Romney Republicans, and those who drink the Libertarian kool-aid, who have already surrendered, is problematic.
Remind me again why I even GO to the polls to vote?
Wisconsin VOTED on this - we AMENDED OUR CONSTITUTION to try to stop this.
The Sodomites kept hammering away at it through the courts, until they got what they wanted.
I give up. I guess I’m gay, now. *SPIT*
Even Governor Walker threw in the towel, today. Grrrrrr!
I would tend to agree with your analysis on that. SCOTUS is likely letting this churn for a bit before making a decision. It is curious that the right wing of the court couldn’t get to four, when they clearly could with Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. So that would probably mean that they want to sidestep the issue for now.
If you’re on the left-flank of the court, you’re winning, so you really have no incentive to grant cert.
You’d figure the next battle wouldn’t necessarily be the imposition of gay marriage as a right. Incrementally, it should be something in the estate realm, like who takes intestate if some dies in a state where gay marriage is not recognized. (Like the case in Alabama right now). That could theoretically could force full faith and credit on the non-gay marriage jurisdictions by gay marriage jurisdictions. Since DOMA has been struck down, you think there’d be a full faith and credit argument.
weeping, heart broken and angry
> “Traditional marriage laws do not violate equal protection since they do not take into account the sexual preference of those wishing to marry. Thus as a male, the prohibition for me to marry another man applies regardless of my sexual preference.”
That sounds eerily like the approach used by states in Plessy v. Ferguson. The only things that appear different are names and subjects. The logic is the same.
Your assertion that SCOTUS ignores the Constitution ‘in toto’ is false.
SCOTUS does follow the Constitution when there are no polarized conflicts among competing amendments or when interpretation of certain amendments can be used as cover. In the case of DOMA, the 14th Amendment was used to overrule states rights arguments. Although this is disturbing, it is a result of the practice of jurists to be as general and encompassing as possible when writing amendments. This allows for abuse of interpretation.
A clear Marriage Amendment with clauses barring any infringement must be observed by federal courts if it is written well. And it will be written well if it calls out clearly that no other previous Amendment may infringe upon it.
Support Article V. Educate people around you what it is, why it’s necessary and why it’s safe and appropriate to invoke it.
Have to agree! If it was the case that there was maybe 2 or 3 that wanted to hear the case for the right reasons, then what is stopping them from issuing a statement of some sort ?
Someone will say they are not allowed to do that? Big Deal, if any of them are even Christian, stand up and be counted.
This war is in its early stages.
Governor Walker has not given up but he must comply with the law unless he walks on a limb of civil disobedience. And you know what the Left will do to him if he defies the law.
But the law can still be changed and the US Constitution can be amended.
Think of how the Nazis used Blitzkrieg to take control of Europe. That’s what you are seeing here with the Left-Homosexual Axis in the Courts.
Don’t give up. Think about the world you want to leave your children.
I don’t support an Article V convention at this time.
Those who would be choosing the delegates have already shown that they won’t follow the Constitution as it now exists.
Why in the world would I want people like that tinkering with that great document?
No. I think folks should be focusing on raising up leaders who understand the Constitution, and who are committed to keeping their oaths to support and defend it.
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.