Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Second Circuit Court Finds Section 3 Of DOMA Unconstitutional
towleroad.com/ ^ | 10/18/2012 | n/a

Posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:23 AM PDT by massmike

We have some breaking news out of New York: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled on Windsor v. the United States, a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and found a federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution.

"[W]e conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional," they wrote.

Our legal eagle Ari Ezra Waldman will have a full analysis soon.

(Excerpt) Read more at towleroad.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: democrats; doma; homonaziagenda; homonazimarriage; homonazism; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; lawsuit; liberalfascism; liberals; moralabsolutes; progressives; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT

exactly

homosexuals have every right as us, there is not one right they do not have which we have.

They can marry the opposite sex just as we can, we can;t marry the same sex just as they can;t, we can;t marry more than one person at once just as they can;t.

What frigging dopey lawyer was on our side for this and who were the judges?

Liberalism is a mental disease, it really is.

This is all based on sex, that’s it, how they get off.

Some say on our sdie that the homosexuals agenda is nothing, I’ve seen libertarians on here say that they have no problem with a grown man marrying his little daughter, we truely live in a sick country today and our side like Hannity won;t even mention social issues and yet THE LEFT ALWAYS FIGHTS FOR THEIR SOCIAL ISSUES,.


101 posted on 10/18/2012 11:28:51 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
I have a (liberal) lawyer friend whose favorite expression is that we’re a nation of laws, not men. But that is BS given the phenomenon of judges continually deciding that laws which were constitutional are now (magically) not constitutional anymore.

The elite intellectual crowd tends to conveniently forget that not all laws are equal and or even legitimate whether they be passed by a legislative body or pulled out of thin air by a judge.

There is common law -laws not centrally planned; often with no rational basis -laws historically proven successful that evolved in a society promoting the common good -laws coming out and adopted having emanated from the free marketplace of ideas.

The elite intellectual crowd also tends to discount if not completely ignore the laws that are by default premised upon the inalienable authority that is above government -God the Creator. No rational basis is the battle cry of the leftist elites who plank by plank attempt to dismantle proven tradition and institution for their supposed rationally derived and centrally planned utopia.

102 posted on 10/18/2012 11:32:49 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: massmike

So exactly what is marriage?


103 posted on 10/18/2012 11:39:50 AM PDT by CityCenter (It's too late, Obama yeah, it's too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
The only thing that got conceded to government was what was called CIVIL REGISTRATION ~ births, deaths, marriages....... neat way to keep people not members of the church (of whatever kind) out of the records.

At the time civil registration was created it was considered a great advance in civil liberties.

104 posted on 10/18/2012 11:42:42 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: manc
50 years back Virginia was a one party state, and that party was the Democrat party.

It's gotten better, but we still have a lot of fascist stuff they instituted that stands in the way of progress.

105 posted on 10/18/2012 11:44:16 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: willibeaux
Why should I bother. The whole story has been posted many times and not one of you guys has bothered to even comment on it ~ mostly because you can't.

I think he did the prayer and counseling bit on it and gave up.

106 posted on 10/18/2012 11:50:27 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Just a matter of time before the Warren Roberts Court comes to the same decision.

Surely you jest. Everyone knows Roberts upheld Obamacare because the law was passed by representatives elected by the people. "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." (In other words, the Constitution doesn't matter; elections do.) Therefore, DOMA will be upheld. /sarc

107 posted on 10/18/2012 11:51:24 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Why do you constantly rant about Polygamy? No one is proposing it in any American State right now. It basically has been adopted in many societies, when there are many more women than men, as a result of wars, etc.; but absolutely no one is pushing the idea in any contemporary American State.

You sound like a guest at the party in Alice & Wonderland, over the non-issue.

Also, why do you continually misrepresent Mitt Romney's actions in relation to "same-sex" marriage?" If he went along with certain things in Leftist Massachusetts, that does not mean that he does not mean what he says in the present race. Obama is the candidate who has endorsed the oxymoron--for t hat is what the very concept of "same-sex marriage" is.

William Flax

108 posted on 10/18/2012 11:52:14 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The Second Circuit just tossed the whole marriage thing ~ THE WHOLE THING.

So what are you talking about?

109 posted on 10/18/2012 11:59:14 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: massmike

I despise the direction our country is heading.


110 posted on 10/18/2012 12:00:47 PM PDT by uncitizen (Impeach Obama NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

BTW, polygamy is usually adopted in societies where fertile women are in short supply. The rich guys get the women, and the poor guys get to share the leftovers.


111 posted on 10/18/2012 12:05:09 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
What I was "talking about," or writing about is that Polygamy is not an issue in America, today. Your focus on a non-issue, contributes little to a rational discussion of what is happening in America to our--not other people's--cultural heritage & social infra-structure.

William Flax

112 posted on 10/18/2012 12:19:25 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Whether this court is correct or not doesn’t really matter. If America and Americans are relying on the DOMA to preserve marriage, we’re utter fools.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God won’t accept law as a substitute for morality. (That’s on practically every page of the Bible.) If we think passing a law relieves us of responsibility, this court has done us a favor by disabusing us of that notion.


113 posted on 10/18/2012 12:40:52 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I heard Little Richard say that talking about his own conversion from homosexuality probably 30 years ago.

Little Richard was a homo?

114 posted on 10/18/2012 12:45:02 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (To bid on this tagline space: www.jeffchandlerstaglinespace.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Once upon a time, yep. In the interview I saw, he said "God finally convinced him Adam was supposed to be with Eve, not Steve."

Wikipedia Little Richard - See Personal Life

115 posted on 10/18/2012 12:50:26 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I know that it doesn’t violate equal protection, because I know that the Founders would never have intended this.

DOMA doesn't violate the equal protection clause, because DOMA is applied equally to all Americans. (It's not as though some classes of people are allowed to engage in homosexual unions, and other's are not.) The law says that the US government recognizes that all Americans can marry one person of the opposite sex. This means that homosexuals have the same rights as all other Americans since all Americans can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same sex couples just choose not to exercise that right. Since the law is applied equally to all Americans it does not violate equal protection.

Striking down DOMA on the grounds of equal protection is absolutely absurd. Following this court's crazy logic, incestuous and polygamous marriage will have to be upheld as well because not permitting them also would violate equal protection as described by this court.

116 posted on 10/18/2012 12:51:12 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You have a good point, but if we count bi-sexuals or those who recreational fudge packers and rug munchers I would bet the total is more like 20%.


117 posted on 10/18/2012 1:09:58 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Ohioan

Actually Polygamy is a problem in this country but it is underground so to speak., muslims and other religions accept it and do it.

In Canada right now there is a suit about this and I read on here though I have nio time to fund t that a suit has been filed in a state , not sure which one it is but it was out west.

What this decision has done and it;s a stupid activist decision is that marriage is anything.
Thye have the same rights as us, and what defines homosexuals is that they like sex and get off sexually with the same sex,.
So based on that they think special laws should be applied and I;m sure the foudning fathers would not have done special laws based on how one has their sex and if they thought this sick act would have been a problem as it is now then they would have dealt with it in the constitution


118 posted on 10/18/2012 2:28:56 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: manc

We don’t have any lawyers, dopey or otherwise, on our side anymore — the justice department is actually AGAINST the laws of our country on this issue, advocating for them to be overturned.


119 posted on 10/18/2012 2:32:30 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: manc

We don’t have any lawyers, dopey or otherwise, on our side anymore — the justice department is actually AGAINST the laws of our country on this issue, advocating for them to be overturned.


120 posted on 10/18/2012 2:32:30 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: old republic

I think your logic is sound, however, they argue that it ignores homosexuality. Since homosexuals exist, and since Scotus said that homosexuality can’t be criminalized in the Texas case, then the 2nd circuit logic naturally follows.

We are not denying the existence of homosexuality, we are saying it is unwelcome behavior. We used to be able to classify it as illegal behavior until Scotus.


121 posted on 10/18/2012 2:33:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: old republic

exactly
they have the same rights as us and everytime I hear someone state how they are being treated unfairly I ask what is our rights which they do not have and never once can they answer.

We can’t marry the same sex nor can they, we have age laws just like them.

Homosexuals define themselves and the only ay to define them is by their sex and how they have oit and because of that they think they should be given special rights as if they were a normal family, a normal couple, normal parents etc

Our side should be fighting about this much more and the lieks of Hannit are nothing but cowards when it comes to the social issues


122 posted on 10/18/2012 2:34:47 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The dumb-ass “court” is WRONG. All persons are treated the SAME under that law (DOMA). Every person has the right to be single, OR to marry any person of the opposite sex he or she can talk into it. There is no simply no discrimination. Period. Obviously, the “judges” could never program a computer.


123 posted on 10/18/2012 2:40:05 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
You were saying it's not an issue with you because no state is proposing it.

Yet it is a problem ~ and it coughs social problems that you and I get to pay for in our tax bills.

124 posted on 10/18/2012 3:06:36 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Tutti Fruiti ~ now where do you suppose that came from


125 posted on 10/18/2012 3:08:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
The dumb-ass “court” is WRONG. All persons are treated the SAME under that law (DOMA). Every person has the right to be single, OR to marry any person of the opposite sex he or she can talk into it. There is no simply no discrimination. Period. Obviously, the “judges” could never program a computer.

The problem with this argument is that the same argument could have been made about laws prohibiting miscegination - e.g., "Every person has the right to be single, OR to mary any person of the opposite sex same race he or she can talk into it. There is simply no discrimination."

Obviously, the two situations are not at all similar -- the state has a much, much stronger interest in promoting traditional marriage than it did in prohibiting interracial marriage -- but making the "everyone has the same rights" argument leaves you susceptible to the interracial marriage comparison (which libs LOVE - makes them feel like supporting same sex marriage is a "civil rights issue").

126 posted on 10/18/2012 3:17:56 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Romney instituted gay marriage in MA ~ that’s what he did. Starts with him.

I'm afraid so. It was NOT the legislature. The corrupt Mass. Supreme Court ordered the legislature to legitimate gay marriage. They did not. But Romney stepped in and did it himself as governor, single-handed. He ordered all the clerks in the state to preside over and approve gay marriages, on pain of being fired if they refused.

Romney was the VERY FIRST politician in the country to institute gay marriage as state law. And he did it on his own. He was NOT forced to, although he pretended that he was.

I keep hoping that there is a way out of this mess, but Romney is a very questionable solution, I'm afraid. I'm hoping to see Obama lose the election, but I'm not at all sure that Romney can be counted on to undo anything that Obama did.

127 posted on 10/18/2012 3:20:10 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Vision

Newt wanted to get his hands on them!


128 posted on 10/18/2012 3:45:05 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Please stop trying to inject logic and reason into what otherwise was an effective slander.


129 posted on 10/18/2012 3:59:12 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; newzjunkey

As opposed to most blackrobes, our Framing generation knew the difference between liberty and license.

Until the blackrobes and bureaucrats are neutered, our republic will continue to slide into arbitrary government and tyranny.


130 posted on 10/18/2012 4:01:02 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Exterminate rats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
my daughter aged 11 saw Casey Anthony on TV and since then she has stated she will be a judge so she can put the bad people away for a long time and also for the country to follow the constitution.

She knows more about the constitution than most adults and she;s 11.

Sadly we do not have enough conservatives as judges, teachers and lawyers .

Karl Marx once said that their agenda will not carry by force or be accepted and that they need to get into positions of power and influence and boy have they done that.

I heard on Levin this was a 2-1 judge decision, to think that these two judges have that much power that they can redefine marriage.

We should have done a constitutional amendment years ago but we had too many on our side saying this was no big deal about civil unions, hell we still have idiots on our side saying this is not a big deal and we certainly have cowards on this issue like Hannity who refuse to mention this due to them having homosexual pals , work with them or don;t want to upset their liberal pals like Beckel or be called a name

131 posted on 10/18/2012 5:28:08 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I never said they would go to hell, I only said that I think The Lord is keeping track and that they spit on Him/Jesus when they vote as they do.

You see a vote for a Democrat in my mind, says that they support infanticide, the removal of Christ/God from public square/classroom etc etc,

Means they support homosexuality being taught to children as normal.

A Christian for starters should not even be capable of wanting the Name of Jesus removed from anywhere. He already tells us in His Word, that he formed us each in the womb, knows how many hairs on our heads, and also states that our bodies are not are own, but his. So women that argue their right to control their own bodies,need to take a look in the New Testament

Not for me to say who will burn in hell. Have they asked Jesus into their life, have they thanked Him for dying on Cross etc?

To support abortion or want the Name of Jesus removed from public, suggests to me, that they never came to the place of accepting Christ..

The Lord knows all of that, I just said they spit on Him when they vote Democrat..My opinion :)


132 posted on 10/18/2012 5:40:27 PM PDT by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2012 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Gay rights prevails because its central theorem - f*** who you want, when where and how you want, laws rules and customs nonwithstanding - has proven quite popular with the heterosexual 99%.

You are absolutely correct!
133 posted on 10/18/2012 7:35:27 PM PDT by Darth Gill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Romney instituted gay marriage? That’s a gross, malicious lie.

I think you are just jealous. You probably wish YOU had an entire state’s gay lobby hold a BIGOT rally against you like they did against Romney when he was trying to pass a Defense of Marriage ballot referendum.

“RALLY AGAINST ROMNEY “BIGOT!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaLsE-y1TQE


134 posted on 10/18/2012 8:37:59 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“ROMNEY FIGHTS FOR MARRIAGE VOTE”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXyDxMKv1E&feature=related

Uploaded by BobSacamaneau on Nov 20, 2006

Governor Mitt Romney addresses a rally at the Massachusetts State House calling on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. The ballot initiative would allow the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Currently the legislature is refusing to allow their constituents to vote on the matter, violating the Massachusetts Constitution.


135 posted on 10/18/2012 8:41:15 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Isn’t it obvious that if mankind truly “evolved” from random mutations that somehow exquisitely perfected us into what we are, homosexuality would long ago have been culled out of the human genome?

You mean like how horrible genetic diseases were culled out of the genome? You know like the aggressive forms of muscular dystrophy, where the afflicted rarely survive to puberty? I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and politically you mean well, but your grasp of science is terrible.

136 posted on 10/18/2012 8:56:34 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee
hmm ~ bunch of Democrat fairies flitting around ~ no thanks. However, the story on the net is that he directed the clerks to issue marriage licenses even though the legislature had not passed a law for them to do so ~ and still hasn't.

Seems to me 'He did that'

137 posted on 10/19/2012 4:45:35 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: xzins
In Windsor, however, the Second Circuit went further, applying “intermediate scrutiny” to laws, like DOMA, that target gays and lesbians.

That's why they say it violates "equal protection," and that's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. DOMA doesn't "target" gays and lesbians any more than it targets any other class of persons ineligible for marriage with each other: fathers and daughters, sisters-in-law, nine-year-olds, or triplets.

Its fundamental purpose is not to discriminate "against" gays, but to reaffirm the constant historic rational basis of marriage ---specifying a union which is potentially reproductive, as contrasted to potentially tennis-playing, foot-massaging, mutual-masturbating or condo-sharing.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" >:o/

The public "rational basis" for marriage is that it provides recognition and stability for the one-and-only kind of union which can inherently generate offspring.

Marriage wasn't invented by the state. It is not state property. It always has been, and still is, the only institution which unites children to their natural father and mother. The state can recognize it, can protect it, but cannot steal its name, delete its nature, and then launch something different in its stead.

138 posted on 10/19/2012 9:48:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; wagglebee

I agree 1000 percent with every single thing you’ve written Mrs.D, but I do NOT believe that Scotus will overturn this. I believe that after the Texas ruling that essentially acknowledged homosexuality as acceptable, that the judges will simply rule that forbidding marriage is preventing homosexuals from a particular activity because others are permitted that activity.

It will take either a constitutional amendment or a new DOMA that includes the congressional power to prevent judicial review.

Please do not hear me disagreeing with your excellent essay detailing the only legitimate reason for advantaging marriage between a one man and one woman: potential procreativity and the rearing of children in the most positive setting which is the loving homeof their own biological parents.

What you are hearing me saying is that I believe Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts will not side with DOMA.


139 posted on 10/19/2012 9:59:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Mrs. Don-o
that the judges will simply rule that forbidding marriage is preventing homosexuals from a particular activity because others are permitted that activity.

Which is total nonsense.

There is no law now, nor has there ever been a law, that prohibits homosexuals from getting married. They have EXACTLY the same rights to marriage as anyone else.

What the left cannot accept is that no society in the history of the world has EVER defined marriage as anything other than between ONE man and a woman. Even in cultures that permit polygamy, all marriages have always had exactly one man, never more and never less.

Same-sex marriage is nothing more than Satan's latest attempt to destroy the institution of marriage altogether. First came the Pill and the notion that sex for enjoyment only without the possibility of reproduction was acceptable. Then came no fault divorce which gave the impression that marriage was nothing more than a temporary arrangement. Then there was the "free love" movement that further eroded marriage. And now we see same-sex marriage.

Satan and his willing agents on the left don't give a damn if homosexuals can marry each other or not, their only objective is to destroy the institution of marriage for the rest of us who do still believe in Biblical teaching about marriage.

140 posted on 10/19/2012 10:49:44 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You're right, xzins---I understand what you're saying. I hope for SCOITUS to overturn this damned thing; but realizing (as you said) that they seem to have given up on Constitutional integrity, we'll need another ace to win this hand: either an amendment or a Congressional smackdown excluding court interference.

"What a revoltin' situation..."

141 posted on 10/19/2012 11:16:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“SCOITUS”? Oh my.....


142 posted on 10/19/2012 11:17:28 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Good. So this means that I now have the right to carry in all 50 states and U.S territories.


143 posted on 10/19/2012 11:44:35 AM PDT by yuleeyahoo (Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; wagglebee
SCOITUS

LOL!

Freud in drag is running around showing his slip.

144 posted on 10/19/2012 1:52:32 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Mrs. Don-o
I agree with you, wagglebee, but we both know that no matter which side wins this election, there will be no urgency on the part of either administration to vigorously defend DOMA.

IIRC, Anthony Kennedy leans libertarian, and with 4 liberals that means he will not deny the 2nd Circuit's ruling.

John Roberts is absolutely unpredictable. You'd think, after his urgent need to support the legislative branch regarding obamacare, that he'd do the same with doma and congress. But we know better. Roberts did what he did because he caved, not because of some doctrine of supporting duly passed legislation.

145 posted on 10/19/2012 1:57:06 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
f*** who you want, when where and how you want, laws rules and customs nonwithstanding - has proven quite popular with the heterosexual 99 percent.

Oops, you nailed it without really trying!

146 posted on 10/19/2012 2:46:06 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Annoy the Establishment! Vote for Akin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"Gay rights prevails because its central theorem - f*** who you want, when where and how you want, laws rules and customs nonwithstanding - has proven quite popular with the heterosexual 99%."

So true. Marriage historically, and truthfully means, one-man-one-woman, exclusively, for life, in a sacred fertile union. When the heteros went for premarital test-driving as the new norm, divorce-remarriage (that's not "one man one woman," it's serial polygamy), amorous excursions ezxcused, secular-civil and contracepted, we (heteros) knocked 85-90% of the "stuffing" out of the "definition of marriage" already.

The gays are just adopting a denatured self-serving set-up which we heteros already counterfeited, re-normed, and fraudulently labeled "marriage."

147 posted on 10/19/2012 3:34:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yuleeyahoo

DOMA is Defense of Marriage Act. Not sure where concealed carry reciprocity fits into this.


148 posted on 10/19/2012 5:12:40 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: willibeaux; muawiyah; Cicero; Tamzee
Please post your clear and convincing evidence that Romney instituted gay marriage.

You asked for it, so here it is. Not that I believe you will actually read the proof, but for those not knowledgeable about what happened, in a nutshell, here is what happened:

1. According to what is plainly and simply written in the Massachusetts constitution, All matters of marriage are supposed to originate from the Legistlature via bills/laws.
2. The Supreme Court of MA while ruling on an issue gave the LEGISLATURE 180 days to iniatiate Gay Marriage.
3. The LEGISLATURE refused to act on the COMMAND from the Supreme Court.
4. Romney, without a consitutional law, decided, unconsitutionally, he had to skip the LEGISLATIVE process and implement what the Supreme Court had commanded.

It was Unconsitutional and Illegal and contrary to the lies of Romney, he was not forced by the Supreme Court of MA to do anything, because the Supreme Court of MA was acting unconsitutionally.

And here is a letter from 44 conservatives, that was hand-delivered to Mitt Romney, detailing exactly how his actions were totally unconstitutional and how wrong he was to have instituted Gay Marriage, all on his own:

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)


December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:
"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)
Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)
The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)
In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)
We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)
We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:
"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)
We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)
Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).


Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Signed,
Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001 © 2012 Microsoft Terms Privacy About our ads Advertise Developers Help Center Feedback English
149 posted on 10/20/2012 1:02:21 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee; muawiyah
Romney instituted gay marriage? That’s a gross, malicious lie.

No, the gross malicious lie was the lie told by Romney that he was forced by the Supreme Court of MA to iniatiate Gay Marriage when the Legislature had not put a bill before him making it law. (See Post #149 on this thread)

All matters of marriage are to originate from the LEGISLATURE not the Supreme Court of MA BECAUSE the Consitution of MA Declares that this is the LAW of MA.

They cannot and must not originate from anywhere else, including the Supreme Court of MA.
150 posted on 10/20/2012 1:07:00 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson