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

Skip to comments.

Judge Rules Colorado's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional [16th Judge To Strike Down!]
Guardian (UK) ^ | July 9, 2014

Posted on 07/09/2014 9:12:23 PM PDT by Steelfish

Judge Rules Colorado's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional District judge C Scott Crabtree rules 2006 voter approved ban violates state and federal constitutions

A judge in Colorado has struck down the state's gay marriage ban.

District court judge C Scott Crabtree on Wednesday ruled the 2006 voter-approved ban violates the state and federal constitutions. He immediately put his ruling on hold pending an appeal.

Crabtree is the 16th judge to void a state's gay marriage ban since the US supreme court ruled last year that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages in the states.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/09/2014 9:12:23 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

They’re queer. They’re here. And they’re telling us to get used to it.

I’m retired now but I’ve been to a lot of company Christmas parties where there was dancing. I wonder how it’s going to go over when guys start slowing dancing at the parties. The company will be sued if they prevent it. What will happen is there will be no more company parties. A very small percentage of the population, supported by idiots, is forcing the rest to change. I’m sick of it.


2 posted on 07/09/2014 9:25:28 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Can’t the Supreme Court take this on?


3 posted on 07/09/2014 9:39:02 PM PDT by make no mistake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Tenth Amendment. This fake judge is out of line.


4 posted on 07/09/2014 9:44:28 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The fags are on a roll. “Unexpected?” Nope.


5 posted on 07/09/2014 9:56:10 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The future must not belong to those who slander bacon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Where are the conservative judges to start legislating from the bench?


6 posted on 07/09/2014 10:04:00 PM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: make no mistake

They did. They ruled that the DOMA act was unconstitutional.

What they did not settle was the precidence of the 10th Amendment over the 14th Ammendment. As it stands, the current judges are favoring the 14th over the 10th


7 posted on 07/09/2014 10:05:42 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

>> there will be no more company parties.

Yup.

The bitches driving this agenda just don’t get it.


8 posted on 07/09/2014 10:08:23 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All
"... since the US supreme court ruled last year that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages in the states."--From the referenced article.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regardless what activist judges and the corrupt media, which evidently includes the Guardian (UK), wants everybody to think about the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor last year, although the Court struck down DOMA's Section 3, the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2 exposes the media's lies about what the Supreme Court actually decided concerning the constitutionality of gay marriage.

DOMA :

One possible remedy for patriots to stop activist judges from legislating special interest rights from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following in every case which deals with the Constitution. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which justify their case decisions to the satisfaction of voters. And judges who fail to do so should be minimally permanently removed from the bench, possibly serving some jail time.

Also, with the exception of the federal entities indicated by the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, judges should also be required to declare that the Constitution's silence about particular issue means that it is a 10th Amendment-protected intrastate power issue.

I think that the Constitution will need to be amended to likewise require justices to justify their decisions with references to specific constitutional clauses.

9 posted on 07/09/2014 10:11:36 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Unfortunately the solution you propose won’t work. It violates state separation of powers in state constitutions. Legislators cannot interfere with how judges write or reason their decisions.


10 posted on 07/09/2014 10:14:24 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All
"... It violates state separation of powers in state constitutions."

Thank you for that insight. I don't know how many state constitutions have such provisions, but since state judges undoubtedly swear to protect and defend state constitutions as well as the federal Constitution, state constitutions need to be amended to accommodate such laws to hold judges accountable to their oaths.

After all, the states have never amended the federal Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights like gay marriage as the judge mentioned in this thread has wrongly asserted.

11 posted on 07/09/2014 10:34:03 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

“the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2”

Don’t be fooled by the Court’s decision. It did not affirmatively “let stand Section 2” — Section 2 was simply not at issue in the case. I think the current Court would toss Section 2 in a second, if it was presented with an opportunity to do so.


12 posted on 07/09/2014 11:32:51 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
They did. They ruled that the DOMA act was unconstitutional.

To be fair, it was: nothing in the Constitution delegates to the federal government the power to define marriage, and the 10th would indicate that as such it is up to the States, or the people [thereof].

What they did not settle was the precidence of the 10th Amendment over the 14th Ammendment. As it stands, the current judges are favoring the 14th over the 10th

To be perfectly fair: that's the way it should be — later amendments can kill earlier ones (if not, then Amd 18 and 21 have some explaining to do).
However, that said, nothing in the 14th amendment would constrain the States to accept homosexual-marriage: only that the definition of marriage cannot be dependent upon the people involved. For example, if I had an unmarried homosexual brother he could [legally] marry exactly all the women that I could [legally] marry: all unmarried women, not of close relation, over the marrying age. IOW, his sexual preference have no impact on whom he may marry, and therefore such rules are not violative of the 14th Amendment.

See, they're trying to pull a fast one and conflate the groups of whom you want to have sex with and whom you can marry, implying that some restriction by law on the former is the same as restriction on the latter.

13 posted on 07/09/2014 11:55:05 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Crabtree? That’s a surprise. I assumed it would be Judge Oliver Fagworthy.


14 posted on 07/10/2014 12:28:14 AM PDT by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Loon logic: It’s Unconstitutional to be constitutional.


15 posted on 07/10/2014 1:18:59 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Justice Kennedy, look what you have wrought.


16 posted on 07/10/2014 1:28:01 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Judges have no power to make laws, Governors should just say “We do not care what you ruled, we make our own laws”


17 posted on 07/10/2014 1:29:35 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You are correct. The issues of Marriage is NOT an enumerated power however there is the “full faith and credit” clause.


18 posted on 07/10/2014 6:47:15 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Ummm... is there anything in the Constitution about sex? Regular or perverted?

If not, how can a law about it be un-constitutional?


19 posted on 07/10/2014 6:51:06 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I’ve been wondering for some time now why we the people even vote. Why do we the people spend so much time and money electing our representatives only to over ruled by some black robed demigod with his/her own agenda. Now some might say that is because we are nation of laws, well in light of what has been happening lately I would ask just what laws, those enacted or those ruled on by demigods that ignore the those laws. Corruption is corruption no matter how it is ruled. And, it just occurred to me, the word RULED isn’t that a term to used by dictators.


20 posted on 07/10/2014 7:06:12 AM PDT by JayAr36 (OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN THIS A FREE COUNTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; All
Regarding DOMA Section 3, with one reservation I actually agree with the Supremes that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to define what marriage is. After all, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are 10th Amendment-protected intrastate power issues.

My one reservation concerning Section 3 is the following. When the Supreme Court decided against the Mormon practice of polygamy when they decided Reynolds v. United States, 1878, since the 10th Amendment did not apply because Utah was still a territory, not a state, the Court applied English common law which which evidently defined marriage as a one man, one woman union. Given that common law is referenced in the Constitution's 7th Amendment, I think that the federal government should still be bound by that precedent today with respect to federal marriage policy.

Also, note that DOMA Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Full Faith and Credit power (Section 1 of Article IV), power delegated by the states to the feds to regulate the effect of one state’s records in another.

21 posted on 07/10/2014 11:16:22 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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