Rich to federal judge: Your Honor...shhhhh. You were supposed to keep that to yourself until you actually had one of those cases before you. Silly girl.
We are clear, though, the rest of us, that that’s one of the next laws to fall, right?
This woman is insane!
What a nutcase.
She's just mad because all of the top local harems threw her resume in the trash. :)
perhaps the answer if for governors to follow the example of president smidgen and ignore the law? tell these judges to pound sand and ignore their rulings that they find ridiculous.
The misguided Wyoming judge is also wrongly ignoring that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that such issues are automatically state power issues for the most part. With the exception of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Constitution's Section 7 of Article IV, Section 2 of DOMA an example of that clause, the feds basically have no constitutional authority to regulate marriage. So marriage policy for a given state is ultimately up to the legal majority voters of that state.
In fact, since the states have never amended the Constitution to make gay agenda issues like gay marriage a constitutionally protected right, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against things like gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
It took progressives 40 years to stack the judiciary with fellow traitors to the constitution. It may take longer to unwind the damage.
It’s a fake argument to distract from the actual legal issues she was supposed to be ruling on and skew the discussion off into another tangent - typical of liberals, whose arguments cannot be defended intellectually. Instead of ruling based on legal theory, language, and reality, she just decided she’d make the ruling she personally felt like making - like writing her own novel or an essay in liberal academia.
And even if this nonsense were true, that is still marriage between a man and a woman - the women were each individually married to the man, they were not married to each other. And this statute specifically “bans” that as well - one man, one woman. So if this violates the “right” of gays to “marry”, why doesn’t it also violate the “right” of a polygamist to marry as many wives as he wishes? Why not group marriages? She ends up contradicting her own argument by indicating the parties “don’t want” those other kinds of “marriages” to take place as though that somehow is reason why they would want marriage twisted and redefined in other ways and therefore same-sex “marriages” must therefore exist? How the heck does that make any sense?
Barbara Crabb should have her citizenship revoked. The likes of her should be air-dropped to the the Taliban.
I wonder how mqny or those polygamous marriages were same sex marriages...
Well, District Judge Barbara Crabb, that would have been back when your job would have been reading the entrails of slaughtered animals.
Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History 10 (2005) ("Polygyny, whereby a man can have multiple wives, is the marriage form found in more places and at more times than any other.")That tidbit isn't in Study Guide for "Marriage, a History", but link offered here in case you want more substance as to Ms. Coontz's inclinations.
It was Mark Steyn who pointed out that worldwide, polygamy has a much bigger constituency than “gay marriage”.
Unbelievable.