Replies

I’m glad that the Alabama Supreme Court is taking a stand against a corrupt judicial system.

The material below is from a related thread concerning judges wrongly ignoring, imo, 10th Amendment-protected state power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage in case anybody missed it.

——————

A major concern with these 10th Amendment-ignoring federal judges overturning state bans on gay marriage is the following. What points are the state’s attorneys arguing to protect their respective state laws prohibiting gay marriage? It seems like these attorneys don’t know the Constitution and its history well enough to defend such laws.

Or are state attorneys possibly working in cahoots with activist justices in an Alinsky-type deception to trick the states to accept gay marriage?

As mentioned in related threads, pro-gay activist judges are evidently relying on PC interpretations of 14A’s Equal Protection’s Clause (EPC) to strike down bona-fide state laws prohibiting constitutionally unprotected gay marriage. And if such is the case then these thug judges are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically decided at least two relevant cases in the states’ favors, the justices deciding these cases properly rejecting naïve interpretations of the EPC. This is evidenced by the following references.

Note that Minor v. Happersett (Minor) contains an important key for understanding the EPC. More specifically, regardless that pro-gay activist judges are wrongly interpolating the so-called right to gay marriage from the EPC, the Minor justices had clarified that 14A does not add any new rights to the Constitution. That amendment only strengthens rights which the states have expressly amended the Constitution to protect.

“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.

In fact, the Court’s clarification of the EPC in Minor reflects the official clarification of 14A of John Bingham in the congressional record, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

So in Minor, since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect voting rights on the basis of gender, EPC didn’t automatically establish such rights when 14A was ratified as activist judges seem to be arguing concerning the so-called “right” to gay marriage versus state prohibitions on gay marriage.

And just as Minor showed that the states were constitutionally free to make voting laws which discriminated on the basis of sex regardless of the EPC (this right later protected by the 19th Amendment), Pace v. Alabama (Pace) showed that the states are likewise free to make marriage laws which discriminate on the basis of other constitutionally unprotected “rights” regardless of EPC.

Here’s a commentary concerning Pace.

FR: Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling

Also, note that regardless that the corrupt media evidently wants everbody to think that the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.

DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No 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.

Section 2 is appropriately based on Congress’s constitutional authority, under Full Faith and Credit Clause (4.1), to regulate the effect of one states records in the other states, Section 2 clarifying that the states are not obligated to respect gay marriages by other states.

But regarding Section 2, also consider that the corrupt Court is now seemingly doing a complete turnaround with respect to wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment protected state power to prohibit gay marriage.