Skip to comments.ACLU to challenge NC ban on same-sex marriage
Posted on 07/09/2013 3:32:10 PM PDT by GenXteacher
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) has announced plans to challenge North Carolina's ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
The civil liberties group says it will amend a federal lawsuit filed against the state last year on behalf of six same-sex couples and their children.
The lawsuit challenges North Carolina's ban on second parent adoptions.
The ACLU is asking North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to agree to allow an additional claim challenging the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples to be added to Fisher-Borne v. Smith, a lawsuit filed last year in Greensboro in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbtv.com ...
prelude to overturn all the states and their laws.
F them, I;m sick of these people pushing their agenda onto others, we have freedom of religion, and states rights and if their way of sex is so open for them then keep it in their own queer community and not bother telling us about it
here we go...the sick bastards are on the march.
Same here. That, and the crushing underfoot of the people of NC by the Federal judiciary.
That took, all of what? 2 weeks?
It will be interesting to see how Governor McCrory handles this. He isn’t going to want to upset his base right now because we are really making strides to clean this state up.
So what activist justices, judges and the ACLU are wrongly ignoring is that the states can make laws which discriminate against people on various criteria as long as a given criterion is not an express, constitutionally protected right, and as long as such laws discriminate equally against everybody for which a given criterion applies.
The ACLU needs yo be surpessed and its members exiles from the US for life or imprisoned for life. They are dedicated to the destruction of civilization.
Barely. Almost as if they had it planned...
Pretty sure I spent time arguing with Liberaltarians that we would see this happen.
Yep, but the whatever-floats-your-boat crowd doesn’t care about right and wrong.
I’m not so much worried, yet, about a SCOTUS claiming an outright ban is unconstitutional. What does worry the Hell out of me is Full, Faith and Credit. THAT will lead to what none of us want.
The California decision proves they have it in them to defy a vote by the people. They will probably go after Full Faith and Credit next.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Here it comes. Sooner or later some states, state AGs, Congresscritters (yeah I know), state legislatures - are going to have to stand up against the tsunami of evil and just Say No. Somehow or other. Whatever it takes.
Anyone wanting on/off any of my ping lists, freepmail me.
Something just occurred to me. Perhaps one way out of this is for a state that has actual decent state government to Just Say No and when the feds/courts tell them "Too bad, you lose, homos win", the State says "Make me". And then the fedgove/courts say "Well, we'll with hold Uncle's money from you" and then the State could say "Go ahead, make my day". All Uncle's money to the states comes with strings - ropes - whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The state could stop sending Uncle his "share" of the money. State rebellion seems to be the logical step. Someone tell me if my idea is all wet.
Libertarians pretend they are for “freedom” but they actually hate states’ rights. They want the Huge Nanny State Gov to force vice on everyone.
same here, I;ve said this would happen, but the usual ignorant libertarians just say don’t be silly while the left fringe say that it’s stupid and that they want to be private.
I’m sick of them telling us all how they have their sex, shut the hell up, get in the bedroom and stop with this insanity of flag waving, freak parades and telling every person that you’re a homosexual.
in essence shut the f@@@ up
NC voted, over 30 other states voted and we are sick of this crap of trying to tell us that we should accept your perversions or way of sex life
I don’t know if it’s all wet or not, but if that didn’t happen when the legal murder of the unborn was imposed on those states that had laws against it, I doubt that it would happen for ‘gay marriage.’ You never know.
The gay activists can pass all of the laws in the world... two things that they can never change:
1) Their acts of sex are abhorrent in the eyes of GOD
2) At the end of the day, after all of the propaganda of trying to sell their evil deeds as being wholesome and normal... they are still sticking their penis up an orifice that contains the feces of another man
I don’t know if your idea is all wet but I certainly like it. No federal funds definitely works both ways.
Seen their lies before. Getting pretty damn tired of it.
Don’t look at me. I’ve already stated on this forum that if my state seceded, I’d go with it.
Actually I think my idea needs to be implement for a whole raft of reasons. Gazillion reasons.
Yes, it's possible that a state could defy the federal government and refuse a Supreme Court order to enforce the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution with regard to homosexual marriages in another state.
It's also possible — maybe even probable — that some county clerk somewhere in a conservative county in a conservative state will absolutely refuse to register two homosexuals who come in to be married, then the state courts refuse to order the clerk to do so, then an initial federal court decision in a conservative circuit finds some loophole not to overturn the state court decision, and the matter ends up at the Supreme Court to determine how the federal government should enforce the “full faith and credit” clause if a legislature, backed by the state constitution and state courts, refuses to change its laws.
The problem becomes how will the executive and legislative branches of the federal government enforce the decision of the federal Supreme Court.
In the real world, it seems quite likely that the first step will be for the federal government to use the power of the purse. Using your terms, “And then the fedgove/courts say ‘Well, we'll with hold Uncle's money from you’ and then the State could say ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ All Uncle's money to the states comes with strings - ropes - whoever pays the piper calls the tune.”
With most things — raising the drinking age, adopting a maximum speed limit, etc. — states have been willing to capitulate and do what the federal government wanted rather than risk losing federal funds.
What will happen if a state flat-out refuses to do so, which could quite realistically happen on homosexual marriage?
Nobody knows the answer to that.
What we do know is that states withholding money from the federal government won't work. How is the legislature of South Carolina or Georgia or Texas going to stop the federal government from collecting taxes from the residents of their state? And given the realities of our interconnected banking system, how could a state — even if it wanted to — protect its residents from having their bank accounts seized for payment of unpaid taxes?
The simple fact is that the federal government has most though not all of the cards in this game. Barring a major collapse of the federal government's financial ability to use the power of the purse to dictate terms to the states, there is very little a few individual states can do to reject federal orders from the court.
Getting the required supermajority of state legislatures and of Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman probably won't work, either. I am not convinced we had the required majority back when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and we sure don't have it now. After all, that's why DOMA was passed because it was very likely a constitutional amendment would fail.
I think the only remaining realistic solution now is a combination of:
1) states refusing to change their definitions of marriage,
2) states refusing to recognize homosexual marriages from other states, hoping the federal courts won't force the issue,
3) a concerted attempt to get conservative Senators elected who can reject bad Supreme Court nominees and confirm good Supreme Court nominees, and
4) if the Supreme Court does something really awful on marriage, trying to impeach one or more of the worst Supreme Court Justices to send a message to the court that the political process will not accept shoving gay marriage down the throats of states that don't want it.
If that doesn't work, and if a financial collapse doesn't happen, I see no realistic way to avoid the federal government forcing its will on the states if it chooses to do so.
The pipe dreams about “Civil War II” are just that — pipe dreams — as long as the federal government has the financial ability to use its carrots of financial incentives and its even more numerous sticks of policing, taxing, and regulating authority, not to even begin to speak of its military power.
Of course a major economic collapse could change that calculus, but if push comes to shove, nothing short of a major economic collapse will make it possible for states to revolt against a federal government determined to force its will on the states with regard to homosexual marriage.
We need to face facts, focus on politics, and hope the federal government will step back and not force its will on the states. The alternatives, while not utterly impossible, are so horrible that we should not even be considering them as realistic options.
Here's how I see it. The fedgov is bloated beyond the wildest nightmare of the founders - it's like a stinking cancer that has metastasized to the point where every single tissue, organ, structural component, gland and hair follical of the social body is fatally ill. Tweaking this little doodad here and hoping for a minute 3 degree change in that little doodad there only prolongs the agony. I can hear the death rattle right now. Your plan or ideas might have merit if EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING THE FEDGOV DOES wasn't already a giant bloated corrupt evil unconstitutional mechanism of utter tyranny.
So therefore, IMHO, complete financial collapse is the best scenario. Otherwise, the corrupt fedgov will continue to use the power of the fiat to destroy the couple of inches left of any shadow resemblence of our original republic.
Homo marriage is just the dingleberry on the crap cake.
We should love the lesbians who are suing for the law to be thrown out (as in pray for and love them so that they might repent and know Christ-and His forgiveness and healing), but WE WILL NOT let them redefine marriage in North Carolina, no way-no how-never. In Jesus Name,
“We need to face facts, focus on politics, and hope the federal government will step back and not force its will on the states. The alternatives, while not utterly impossible, are so horrible that we should not even be considering them as realistic options. “
1. It is a fact that the Republican leadership does not wish to fight this battle. Politics is proving to be a dead end.
2. The Federal Government, through the actions of the Supreme Court most recently, has showed a willingness to extend its power.
3. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I’ll be content to pray for the Almighty’s judgement to come soon on them and us for permitting this evil to go as far as it has.
That's it. And the leftists/liberals/socialists/commies which include most of the GOP are the avowed enemy of truth, justice, rule of law, morality, the Constitution, and our freedoms.
Judgment: that we would have deserved as well (before Christ saved us)? We do not like the wicked things that people do, but God’s Grace prevails, especially with the Cross which we do not deserve. We deserve the judgment so while standing AGAINST their public positions, it’s best to remember 1 Cor 6: 11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”