Posted on 10/03/2014 3:36:18 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A judge struck down part of Missouri's gay marriage ban for the first time on Friday by ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, saying state laws banning the unions single out gay couples "for no logical reason."
The order means such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples.
The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who legally married outside the state, including Arlene Zarembka and Zuleyma Tang-Martinez. The St. Louis couple, who married in Canada, said Friday's ruling could boost their household income, and they plan to apply Monday for Zarembka to receive Social Security benefits as Tang-Martinez's spouse.
"To me, it's a real validation by the judge of our relationship and our commitment to each other," Tang-Martinez said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is helping the couples, noted the ruling was a first in the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Fool would not recognize a "logical reason" if it bit him in the butt.
Sodom and Gomorrah Alert!
RECALL THE DAMN JUDGE!
“for no logical reason.”
Logic has no place in The Law, And surely a scumbag lawyer in a dress with a little hammer would know that, it is the INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE and the WRITTEN LAW.
State AGs and Governors should ignore any rulings until SCOTUS rules on the issue.
“Interesting guy” appointed ny Dem. MO Gov. Nixon in ‘09!
The GOP appointment are not much better. When it gets to Supreme Court, which will be soon, the fate of marriage will be decided by Republican appointed judges Kennedy and Roberts. Not optimistic.
States will be forced to recognize out of state gay marriage before they will be forced to recognize concealed carry permits from other states. This is because the right to carry is clearly stated in the second amendment and the right to gay marriage is clearly stated nowhere in the constitution.
UP = DOWN
By that reasoning, shouldn’t other states have to recognize Missouri’s ban on same-sex marriage?
I am waiting for a judge to use the exact same reasoning to force a state like NY or NJ to recognize the concealed carry permit issued by another state.
I am not holding my breath.
well that isn't true - it doesn't single anyone out - the law merely defines what marriage is, which should even be necessary - language exists. Two people of the same sex cannot be husband and wife, and therefore, it is impossible for them to get married - there's the logic, if you need it, judge.
Judges are not legislators. Shove it.
Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found, clarify in the congressional record that 14A applies only express protections amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court had essentially clarified the same thing about three years after Bingham's clarification.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "righs," judges have no constitutionally enumerated rights to apply to the states, via 14A, to protect gay agenda issues. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay issues, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to believe about the Supreme Court deciding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Note that DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Clause 1 of Article IV, which gives Congress the power to decide the effect of one state's records in the other states. So judges who are declaring that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional are actually violating federal law as well as the Constitution imo.
Not going to happen by the Gov. Nixon ignored the State Constitution already by extending state income tax benefits to fake marriages.
The AG might be a different story. I pray so, at least.
Hey guys, this is a STATE judge, ruling AGAINST the state Constituion.
Impeach, arrest, and draw-and-quarter him. He is a traitor to the Constitution.
Does he really see no logical reason for treating couples that are actually married differently from those in pretend marriages?
I read if the state appeals, there will be a stay. Why didn’t SCOTUS agree to hear one of those SSM appeals? Are they waiting for things to get worse, so when they uphold the SSM bans, there won’t be so much arguing?
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.