Skip to comments.Unconstitutional: Judge rules against Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriages
Posted on 01/14/2014 2:30:09 PM PST by Coronal
WASHINGTON On Tuesday, a U.S. district judge ruled against an Oklahoma law, claiming it is unconstitutional.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern ruled that Oklahomas ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at kfor.com ...
Clinton judge nominated in March 94’.
When the first couple of states began to allow gay marriages, I posted that they would use the Federal courts to push it into other states — even states with laws against it. Several on FR responded ‘no way’.
It was obvious that they would use such a tactic.
It is obvious they will try the tactic on other legislation individual states might not like.
Where did the activist judge referenced in the OP go to law school?
Pro-gay PC interpretatiations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gays as long as such laws don’t abridge their constitutionally enumerated rights.
They said we could pass the amendment when absolutely necessary if the courts overrule the states. Well, where are those voice of support for a FMA today?
Instead of a Republic with a representaive government adopting laws and living under them, we now have an oligarchic rule of judges. Levin had a term for it that escapes my memeory, but that is what it is instead of the government form we adopted two centuries ago.
The interesting part of this case is this: if the Supreme Court overturns these federal courts. I don’t think SCOTUS will decide that Gay Marriage is a constitutional right (I could be wrong, but it would have virtually no rational or historical basis). If they overturn these rulings, then California would be in the situation where the Federal Judge is tacitly overturned. He was upheld because of standing, not on the merits.
That would mean the California Constitutional amendment is constitutional but the state government refuses to abide by it.
University of Oklahoma Law School
Loving v. Virginia will be the precedent.
Many US states had laws barring interracial marriages, all of which were struck down as unconstitutional by the aforementioned decision.
That’s the argument that will be used - I can almost guarantee it.
This country is about to yet again see the will of the people overturned by judicial tyranny, to FORCE queer marriage on the people who have rejected it. There comes a time when the people must dissolve the political bands that have tied them. We have witnessed constitutional violation after constitutional violation. NOT A SINGLE FOUNDER would back this interpretation of the Constitution. NOT ONE!
And this will go to the SCOTUS and it will go along the same lines as the previous rulings, with Kennedy ruling to override the will of the people. And then what we see in New Zealand will happen here. If a church or any organization refuses to conduct these ‘ceremonies’ of filth, they will be designated hate groups and targeted by the IRS. The left march for fascism. The left march for Marxism. The left march to rebuild Canaan, complete with child sacrifices.
This judge is lower than an insect. I can’t think of anything more loathsome.
As a side note concerning prevalent PC interpretations of the Constitution, I surmise that conservative students who attend law school are being indoctrinated with anti-constitutional ideas as much as the liberal students are.
First, autocratic judges . . .
Why is everyone ‘surprised’ when PRECEDENT and NOT the Constitution is referenced in almost 100% of the cases.
When will the People, and the States, wake up to affirm we are NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic and restore Our sovereignty?!
Legal in one state, forced to be legal in all.
The new judicial method of legislation. Robed tyranny.
The idea of basing a ruling on ‘precedent’ assumes that the original ruling was correct!
Bowers v. Hardwick should still be in effect today, because Lawrence v. Texas should have just been based on precedent. Oh, that’s right. Precedent only matters for libs, if not it can be ignored and you can just call the previous judges bigots.
I am so sick of the abuse of the Constitution by seemingly every administration and every kangaroo court in the land.
News 9 - Oklahoma City
Article with link to ruling. . .
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin released the following statement on U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern’s ruling that Oklahoma’s legal definition of marriage is unconstitutional:
“In 2004, the people of Oklahoma voted to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.’ That amendment passed with 75 percent support.”
“The people of Oklahoma have spoken on this issue. I support the right of Oklahoma’s voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters. I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government.”
‘Disapointed’? How about OUTRAGED and DISGUSTED?
Disapointed? How about OUTRAGED and DISGUSTED?
How about declaring the state will ignore the judge’s ruling.
Lamp posts look GOOD when supporting judges......
My point exactly. IMHO, the courts should be mandated to pretzel logic using the Federalist Papers and/or the Constitution. Then they can be swatted down like the flies around B.S. they are.
IMHO, the Founders, using 20/20 hindsight, didn’t put any teeth into the Constitution for those that attempt to subvert.