Posted on 06/27/2015 9:55:17 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Friday’s Supreme Court decision is unadulterated judicial activism. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “Today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to. . . . Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences” in other rightly condemned activist decisions.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage in all 50 states, and five unelected justices do not have the authority to redefine marriage everywhere. Still, the question now is: What do we do?
I suggest that pro-marriage citizens should follow the example of pro-life citizens.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were told they had lost, that the issue was settled.
Let every man/woman married couple sign a post-nuptial agreement regarding assets and taxes and get a divorce to make the word marriage meaningless. Then the above renew their wedding vows/commitment in front of whoever will witness. Why the States were ever given the power to "license" marriage is questionable to me.
I married my wife because it was part of her family's old time traditions, values, and expectations. She was surprised when I proposed because we both agree we loved and respected and liked each other enough to spend our lives together without the permission of any government.
Let the gays now own the term marriage. If my suggestion were to go large scale, bet the gays would find marriage not as sacrosanct and start to wonder why they bothered. Of course, I'm dreaming, but still we need a new term for heterosexual life commitments.
Co-commitment (CC)
Hetero-partners (HP)
Life Partners (LP)
Ties That Bind (TTB)
Man And Woman Partner (MAWP)...har!
Heart Association of Heter-sexuals (HAT)...killing myself here
C'mon Freepers, give us some short simple wording that works with an abbreviation. Let's show these demanding LBGT's we don't need their "marriage" word - we now have our own.
When the individual states assembled and joined into a union they confirmed upon that collective union of states certain powers. Those powers were more closely enumerated and defined when we met again to ratify the Constitution. That's the way the country was wired, first in 1777 with the Articles of Confederation, and again in 1788 with the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative) of the Constitution spells out duties and responsibilities of Congress.
Section 10Thus no states may enter into independent confederacies - only Congress possesses that authority.1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Article II (Article 2 - Executive) establishes the role of the executive (president).
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial) defines the duties and responsibilities of the judicial branch - essentially the Supreme Court.
Section 21: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Thus the Constitution grants the Supreme Court (the collective states) authority and jurisdiction over disputes between states.
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations) defines the relationship of the states to the whole.
Section 31: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Thus it is up to Congress to admit or expel states. In the event of a circumstance such as happened with West Virginia, it is up to Congress plus the affected states to make such a division. Individual states do not possess the authority to do so - not legally at any rate.
To recap: yes it is a case of the federal government telling the states what they can and cannot do - that is the way the law was designed. No, it doesn't go against the 10th amendment because the Constitution granted the appropriate powers to both the Congress to define and organize the states and to the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between the states.
Glad I could help.
abbreviation = acronym.
I was surprised Roberts could spell “Constitution”.
Appealingly you do not know my reputation around here.
And that was one of your better efforts.
The Federal Government has become a scourge on the people of these otherwise United States of America. It is far past the time to abolish it and form a more perfect union. Congressman, Senator, President, Justice. These terms have become a sad joke. Unfortunately the joke is on us.
Have U seen the New LGBTwatever flag ???
Rainbow as usual,, and says FU ! Fudgepackers Unite !
Got Photoshop? I'm not all that good, so go for it.
Silly me. I was under the impression that our government derived it's just powers from the consent of the governed. What we now have are political machines that don't give a damned about what the citizens think. As a matter of fact they have done their best to dumb them down to keep them nice and complacent. Gee, what could possibly go wrong here?
I like your choice of words. Couldn't a conservative Congress pass a bill, to be signed by a conservative president, expelling specific states from the Union? My nominees for expulsion:
List 1 - everyone but Texas and a small number of other states, perhaps UT, ID, WY, OK, and others who overwhelmingly rejected Obama's socialism and who request expulsion.
List 2 - the states that gave Obama 55% or more support in 2012, when they should have known better. IL, CT, NJ, DE, ME, CA, MA, MD, RI, NY, VT, HI, and DC.
The practical effect of expulsion is equivalent to secession, but the legal status may be far prettier. Besides, I don't think the sissies on the left have the guts to fight a war just to keep us under their thumbs. The thugs on the left would be too happy to have free access to their undefended subjects in their set of states, and wouldn't bother with free and armed Americans.
No I don’t. Nor do I care.
It is. If you don't care for its construction then you vote in people more to your liking.
YIPPY SKIPPY! I'm actually a black woman trapped in a white man's body. Where's my EBT card? By the way, my name is now Leticia.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot... THAT’S RACIST!
Theoretically - yes. Practically - never happen. I know of a lot of southerners who would love to be on that list right about now ;')
Rump Rangers Forever? Lickity Split Them? Just don't ask and never tell. What difference does over one hundred thousand years of human history mean anyway?
What difference does over one hundred thousand years of human history mean anyway?
Shows us that (For non-religious) Mother Nature makes mistakes too...For instance, how long does an Albino Gator last?
G ay
A ids
Y et
?
Biblical marriage.
A special marriage that the
destroyers will never have.
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.