Fed judge: [Federal] Gay marriage ban unconstitutional

AP (via MSNBC) ^ | 07/08/2010 | Denise Lavoie

[LomanBill]

>>Now there is a catchy title

More than just a catchy title:

http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

[SunkenCiv]

States rights ping. :') Keyword prop8:

• Interest groups square off in critical special election
• What's Ahead For Same-Sex Marriage?
  [Sen Feinstein: "My Heart Sank When Prop 8 Passed"]
• Calif. Gay-'Marriage' Trial Wraps Up
  (Homosexual judge prepared to overturn Prop 8.)
• At Closings, Judge Asks Same-Sex Marriage Foes, "Where's Your Evidence?"
• Prop. 8 forces target 18,000 same-sex marriages
• FPPC proposes to fine Mormon church for Prop. 8 donations
• SF State University Study Shows That Open, Polyamorous
  Marriages & Relationships Common Among Gays
• Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot
• Calif gay marriage ban repeal falls short
• GOP voters embrace same-sex marriage backer
• Survey: Californians Now More Likely to Favor Gay Marriage
• California candidate for governor aims to reduce abortions,
  thinks Prop. 8 'settled' marriage
• Evidence skirmish could delay end of Prop 8 trial
• Gay 'Marriage' Activists Forcing Pro-Family Views out of California Therapist Association
• Proposition 8 appeal judge Vaughn Walker's gay agenda
• San Francisco Chronicle: "Open Secret" That Prop. 8 Judge is "Gay"
• Does Walker have a conflict? { Homosexual judge to decide Prop 8 }
• Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
• Prop. 8 Trial Wraps Up, Leaving Some Christians Wondering if Their Votes Counted
• 'Dramatic jump' with Utahns for gay rights
• Ballard speaks on Mormons in the media
• New Yorkers Protest Prop 8 by Posing With Duct Taped Mouths
• Dan Walters: California gay marriages may hinge on one man
• Blue California may turn red --
  Low turnout of Latinos, other minorities could defeat Democrats
• Homosexual activists target 96-year-old civic leader
  for supporting Prop. 8 (Oakland, California)
• Presentation of Evidence Concludes in
  Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial (homosexual marriage)
• Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let's talk about who's really being silenced over Prop. 8
• Prop 8 trial witness: Being gay not a choice
• Prop. 8 backer stands by views on pedophilia
• Prop. 8 trial witnesses make 'troubling' attack on religion
  ("chief obstacle") and Catholic teaching
• Prop 8 Challenge Puts Religion On Trial
• Same-sex marriage Judge Vaughn Walker has dealt with other gay rights cases.
• Prop. 8 aid puts Paramount board member on hold
• Should a 96-Year-Old Proposition 8 Supporter Lose a Public Post?
• Marriage Goes on Trial
  (could determine the future of marriage in the entire United States)

[manc]

will the same liberal judge also let states define marriage as one man and 10 women or a woman and her son.

nah course not , this is all about a perverted sick agenda which the far elft, commies and the gaystapo keep pushing

[glock rocks]

The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married.

Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders.

Hmmm. So tell me again why my carry permit isn't valid in Massachusetts, and my carbine isn't legal in California?

[manc]

if a judge said this in Utah say then would the commies, far left loons, those who are too dumb and look for the letter D and homosexuals then be happy about the decision and then having one man and 4 women .?

I really hope some polygamists go to MA and try to have their marriage there, actually they should do and lets see the loons in MA speak for them too.

ARF

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Leftists resort to states' rights to push their agenda, but deny states' rights when opposed to conservative issues. This is not a states' rights issue anyway. It's a natural law issue. Leftists can say "water is dry, not wet" but it doesn't make it so.

[sourcery]

Are you saying that the government cannot define the terms it uses in the laws it enacts?

I'm saying that the Federal government cannot Constitutionally enact laws regarding matters where it has no Constitutional power to act. Defining marriage is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. That power is reserved to the States.

The Federal govenment has no business making any laws that care one way or the other about a person's marital status. That's not properly a Federal issue, concern or responsibility!

[Jacquerie]

The government not only can, but must decide the requirements necessary to receive Medicare benefits. It must also define the terms used in the laws. Whenever “marriage” appears in fed law, it refers to man/woman.

From DOMA: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

It is preposterous to let judges define the terms used in federal law. It violates the very separation of powers defined in our Constitution to acquiesce.

[C19fan]

One of the founding planks of the GOP was the opposition of the admission of Utah as a territory as long as it practiced polygamy. The Federal gov’t forced Utah to ban polygamy before being allowed in a state. The Federal gov’t did not force Mass to drop gay marriage but stated that in terms of federal benefits and tax code gay marriages would not be recognized.

[sourcery]

Medicare is Unconstitutional, so that eliminates that issue. I challenge to find any Constitutional law where Congress has any Constitutional justification for using words such as "marriage" or "married" in the text of the law.

[C19fan]

Wonder if the RINOs who voted against a traditional definition of marriage constitutional amendment because they claimed the DOMA was sufficient will be speaking out. I bet their silence will be deafening.

[Jacquerie]

BTW, DOMA had no effect on homo marriage in MA. Fags can still marry.

[sourcery]

The income tax is an excise tax. Constitutionally, excise taxes must be uniform. That means that progressive rates, and rates that differ based on marital status, are Unconstitutional.

[C19fan]

In an idealized world that is true but in reality that is pretty silly since Medicare and Medicaid have been around for over 40 years.

[Grunthor]

We either believe in the tyranny of fedzilla or we believe in states rights. Only liberals would want it both ways.

[Political Junkie Too]

You posted what I was going to say.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

From DOMA: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Congress not only can, but must define the terms it uses in laws. Sheesh.

[C19fan]

16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where is the clause about uniformity?

[Oceander]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government - a government that heretofor we have all been vociferously arguing is one of limited, enumerated powers - has the power to define marriage? It doesn't, and the federal government shouldn't be engaged in that sort of behaviour.

Furthermore, let's not be too short-sighted about this result. In the first instance, it undercuts the federal government's ability to define marriage to include homosexual couples; and that is most assuredly one of the social-engineering dangers we face from the continued dominance of the fascist left.

Secondly, it provides some persuasive support for the argument that Congress also does not have the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance. There are definite economic ramifications to marriage and to defining who does, and who does not, get to marry - everything from taxes to benefits (including health care) to holding real property (tenancy by the entireties) - and thus the ability of certain individuals to marry necessarily effects interstate commerce. As such, if the Commerce Clause is as expansive as the fascist left would have us believe vis-a-vis Obastardcare, it necessarily follows that it would grant Congress the power to define something so eminently relevant to interstate commerce as the term "marriage."

Consequently, if it is the case that the federal government cannot define the term "marriage" under the powers granted to it by the Constitution, notwithstanding the wide-ranging economic effects of that status, it necessarily follows that Congress also does not have the power to coerce individuals into purchasing health insurance.

Let's take the little victories where we can, and see this for what it is: a brer rabbit moment for our side.

[Jacquerie]

Article I, Section 8:

“. . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”