Posted on 12/03/2012 8:15:21 PM PST by ReformationFan
A Nevada judge has ruled that “no fundamental rights are burdened” by Nevada’s constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman – a ruling that has led liberals and homosexual activists to ridicule his Mormon faith.
Eight homosexual couples sought to overturn the marriage protection measure, which was passed by two-thirds of Nevada voters just 10 years ago. The plaintiffs, who could not marry in the state or have their “marriages” recognize by the state, claimed they bore “the stigma of exclusion and of being branded by the government as inferior.”
District Judge Robert C. Jones responded with a ruling the Family Research Council has called “a 41-page masterpiece.”
Maintaining marriage “a legitimate state interest, he ruled, and “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage is rationally related to furthering that interest.” Marriage, with its immemorial protection and encouragement of child-rearing, should not be devalued, he said.
Judge Jones said the law violates no rights, makes no legal distinction between those of varying sexual orientations, does not abridge the right of privacy, and is not needed to assist a powerless minority – because the Homosexual Lobby “has great political power.”
“Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex,” he ruled. “In this sense, the State of Nevada has drawn no distinction at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
“...being branded..as inferior.”
Not inferior. Broken maybe, but not inferior.
It’s about time, their is no discrimination. Any man can marry 1 woman and visa versa.
It’s about time, their is no discrimination. Any man can marry 1 woman and visa versa.
Anytime this is brought up, conservatives MUST re-frame the issue to what’s really on the table here. Gays want to equate anal sex by two men, or lesbian grinding/whatever to have the same equal protection and blessings the state recognizes in the marriage union of a husband and wife.
Let’s have a stark, brutally graphic discussion about what they DO, and have THEM explain why those acts are just as equal as the natural, potentially life-creating act of sexual union of a husband and wife. Forget about “two people that love each other” argument - just becuase 2 people love each other has never been the only reason to allow them to marry - we don’t let underage girls and boys marry adults, we don’t let already married people who love another person, marry each other, we don’t let close relatives marry even though they love each other. And if two can love each other and want to get married, why not 3, or 4 - who are the gays to limit it to just two people?
Claimed the Plaintiffs: ...they bore “the stigma of exclusion and of being branded by the government as inferior.”
Their claim contains an error, and should have been amended to the following: they bore “the stigma of exclusion and of being branded by God as “abominations”.”
Unfortunately, He was not accepting Summonses.
That’s the argument I always use and I always win. The opposite side ends up defending their opposition to polygamy with “it’s just.... wrong.” Which also applies to gay marriage. Don’t let liberals pick and choose their own moral standards and carve out little niches for special interest groups. If marriage is not sacred, it should be offered to those who wish to marry inanimate objects and dogs.
Not only is gay marriage not protected by a constitutional amendment, but the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage automatically makes such issues a 10A protected state power issue, Congress having no power to make federal laws regulating marriage.
In fact, I will have to side with activist justices who may one day decide that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Again, the states have never delegated to Congress via Constitution the specific power to regulate marriage. DOMA essentially won Article I, Section 8-ignoring federal lawmakers some votes from constitutionally clueless voters.
Not recognizing homosexual “marriage” brands longterm homosexual unions as inferior, not individuals. And then only inferior to longterm heterosexual couples, not any other sort of unmarried couples. The law is silent on where they rank compared to, say, straight male buddies.
Unmarried homos have the exact same status as any other single person.
I see what you’re saying, but the 10th Amendment has been ignored for decades. And anyway, as it related to the States, DOMA simply said that one state need not recognize a gay marriage from another state. It didn’t dictate marriage policy to the states.
The other part of DOMA that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for federal purposes is entirely defensible and justified. I’d rather Congress define marriage for federal purposes than the Sup Court.
And I’m sure you realize that if activist judges do strike down DOMA, it won’t be on 10th Amendment grounds. They’ll most likely twist the 14th Amendment into saying something it was never intended or understood to mean.
Actually, other sorts of couples aren’t inferior presage; they just don’t get special legal status. Which in itself doesn’t mean they’re inferior or superior. Convicts, for instance, have special legal status and everyone hates them.
Finally, a judge speaks the truth. It's NOT about 'equal' rights...it's about special rights.
DOMA does not regulate marriage.
Nevada passed its amendment by 67% in 2002. North Carolina passed its amendment by 61% in 2012 and was hailed as a very impressive victory. If NC had passed its amendment in 2002 it probably would have been in the mid-high 70% ranges.
I am beginning to think that the states that only passed their amendments in the mid-low 50% ranges in the last decade might simply repeal their amendments by popular vote if the judges don’t do what the homosexualists want. They don’t need pols or judges if they have a popular vote majority, and for their purposes 51% is all they need.
Freegards
Thanks for reply. Note that activist judges / justices can make any law mean whatever they want it to mean, DOMA no exception. Congress was arguably wrong to legislatively address an issue which they have no Section 8 authority to address. And since marriage is not a constitutonally protected right, Congress has no authority under 14A to address marriage either.
Except with respect to proposing an amendment to Constitution to protect traditional one man, one woman marriage, Congress should have not touched a 10A protected state power issue imo.
PC DOMA is a lose canon.
PC DOMA is a loose canon.
Bookmark.
Citizens are not being taught the Constitution sufficiently imo, and are "ignoring" it in that context. Sadly, the corrupt federal governent is seizing advantage of what is arguably government-fostered ignorance of the Constitution to unconstitutionally centralize government power in DC.
what does marriage need defending against?
The civil institution of marriage has nothing to do with protecting heterosexual sex.
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.