Posted on 10/07/2014 1:38:50 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
WASHINGTON—The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, setting the stage for legal gay marriages in five more Western states.
The unanimous decision comes a day after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower-court rulings that ended bans in five other states, a move that effectively expanded the right to gay marriage to 30 U.S. states. The Ninth Circuit decision will apply to five states with marriage bans in that appellate circuit, likely expanding to 35 the number of states with legal same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Whatever.
It will be like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Appeal it.
To who do you appeal?
Just yesterday, the SCOTUS told is they do not want to touch this issue.
Hurrah! More judge-made law!
Who’s the first state to get out of the marriage business. No more marriage licenses. Problem solved.
It’s way past time for an uprising.
And by not touching this issue, the Supreme Court decided to allow homosexual marriage to spread to many more states.
A decision not to decide, which technically is what the Supreme Court did, is a decision favorable to homosexual marriage.
FYI, this decision will also almost certainly legalize gay marriage in Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands because they are within the 9th circuit’s jurisdiction.
Genesis 19 applies.
And, after yesterday’s decision, I’d guess this ruling (unlike previous Circuit court rulings) won’t be stayed pending further appeals....
The legal basis of denial is too thin.
But, I am convinced it IS possible to propose and ratify a Constitutional Amendment via Article V and bypass even the cowardly Congress.
The fourteenth amendment is being violated by these courts.
Equal protection is not being applied to the voters who voted to keep marriage biblical OR to their representatives who passed such laws.
Just as African citizens are unthinkingly helping to spread ebola as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the contageous aspect of the disease on their continent, USA citizens are likewise unable to stop the spreading of lies about the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage as a consequence of widespread ignorance of 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally enumerated rights.
As mentioned in related threads, here is why activist judges and justices are wrongly arguing that state bans prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, God-fearing USA citizens are unable to stop the corrupt courts from destroying the institution of one man, one woman marriage because they don't know how to argue that state bans on gay marriage are based on 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected gay "rights."
My guess: you won't get an Article V resolution through more than 10 legislatures at best.
We will, I fear, inevitably and in fairly short order wind up with same-sex “marriage” being imposed on a reluctant citizenry from sea to shining sea by our robed tyrants in the judiciary. The only way of blocking this, in my estimation, is through jurisdiction stripping: the Constitution confers on Congress the power to remove federal court jurisdiction from areas not specifically conferred on the federal courts in the founding document. This would effectively relocate jurisdiction over the matter to state courts.
This would, of course, require that conservatives control both houses of Congress, probably by a substantial margin.
It would also require that the occupant of the White House be willing to sign the legislation, unless the Congress could overcome the presidential veto which would certainly be forthcoming from the current TOTUS. (I don’t think Congress enjoys plenary power to determine federal court jurisdiction.)
“And, after yesterday’s decision, I’d guess this ruling (unlike previous Circuit court rulings) won’t be stayed pending further appeals....”
The only thing a stay would do is delay gay marriage until the SCOTUS refuses to take the the case. That would only be weeks or a few months.
It was noted yesterday by a guest on Fox that the SCOTUS will take another look when there is an appeals ruling in favor of keeping same sex marriage. There was such a possible verdict noted
It was noted yesterday by a guest on Fox that the SCOTUS will take another look when there is an appeals ruling in favor of keeping same sex marriage. There was such a possible verdict noted
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.