Skip to comments.Federal judge to hear Indiana gay couple's request
Posted on 04/05/2014 2:13:10 PM PDT by digger48
EVANSVILLE, Ind. - A federal judge in Evansville has scheduled a Thursday hearing on a gay couple's bid to compel Indiana to recognize their legal marriage in another state.
They are part of a lawsuit challenging Indiana's marriage laws filed last month by Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group.
(Excerpt) Read more at wthr.com ...
Hard to pare down.
the Judge appears to be a Clinton nominee
Still nothing more on the Ypsilanti MI. hate crime. I’ve been keeping my eyes peeled.
No witnesses, no suspects, no nuthin.
News reports just today in Ohio bring yet another case of a Federal Judge declaring a state's marriage law (one man, one woman, of age) "unConstitutional". In this case, Ohio. No stay issued, just a warning that this would be his ruling on April 14th, so there's at least a "heads-up" for the State to prepare an immediate appeal.
That's the pattern. A single Federal judge, the "gay mafia", the lawyers.
Not to mention, the ousting/forced resignation of one of the founders of Mozilla. What ever happened to winning people over with your ideas? If being "progressive" is such a great thing, why the thug tactics?!
I’ve given up. Let the a$$ wipes do whatever the hell they want. You want to march naked in parades? Be my guest! You want to fornicate in public? Enjoy! You want to marry and F@@@ a goat? Have at it. We are in the final stages of societal devolution which is to say societal entropy caused by liberalism of all types. Goodness can not be rebuilt or restored. The future is 100% drugs 24/7 with no one working, no laws enforced, and extermination for anyone daring to be normal or to defy liberal authoritarians! Enjoy. It’s OVER,
The following is what the Constitution and Constitution-respecting justices have actually indicated about so-called gay rights.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, such as marriage, means that goverment power to address such an issue is automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
When the Supreme Court decided against polygamy in the late 19th century in Reynolds_v._United_States, justices referenced English common law, indicated in the 7th Amendment, which prohibits anything but one man, one woman traditional marriage.
In fact, note the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution which reflects on traditional marriage.
"... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (emphasis added) ...,"
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.
So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the gay agenda imo, as long as such laws do not also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Regardless that the corrupt liberal media attempted to distort the Supreme Court's decision concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.
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.
In fact, DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Section 2 of Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The intent of this, the 11th Amendment to the Constitution is perfectly clear. If they got married in another state, they cannot sue the state of Indiana for equity under the law. If this federal judge sits on the 11th Amendment, it’s time for a revolution to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Get ready!
Gays can call it whatever they want and guess what I do not have to accept, honor, or service their hate filled marriage.
Let's face it. All most of us do is complain to each other despite the fact that our country has been sliding (or being pushed) into an abyss for years. Our governments, federal and state, do not want to follow a conservative path. Maybe it doesn't put enough money in their pockets and get enough winning votes?
Whatever the reasons, I can hardly believe what I am seeing and reading about what is happening to this great country in the last fifty years.