Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Echoes as West Virginia Relents and South Carolina Persists

ny times ^ | ERIK ECKHOLM

[Morgana]

A Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage in five states reverberated further on Thursday, with the attorney general of West Virginia conceding that its ban on same-sex marriage was no longer defensible but South Carolina officials vowing to keep fighting to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Since the Supreme Court decision on Monday and a ruling from a federal circuit court on Tuesday, new developments have appeared almost hourly as gay-rights advocates press for action in nine other states: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.

[Secret Agent Man]

the leadership is corrupt beyond repair.

time for it to go.

[Viennacon]

So WV is not willing to defend its democracy anymore either.

Let’s just say this now. If Hillary Clinton lost a majority of the electoral votes in 2016, and a court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state not to give their electoral votes to Hillary, the states would give in without needing so much as a purple nurple from our judiciary.

Let me just qualify what a Republican admin in any given state should have done, had state sovereignty not been so utterly subverted by things like SS and Medicare.

1) Legislature passes order declaring that the state does not recignize the legitimacy of the judge or his/her ruling, as it is out of the bounds of what the Constitution allows for.

2) Governor signs it, and instructs the following for the state bureaucracy

A) All same-sex marriage licenses issued by anyone are not considered legally valid in the state

B) The state will not prosecute any entity refusing to recognize any such invalid license

C) Issuing such a license will be considered forgery, and carry the same felony charge as other similar crimes

D) Anyone issuing such a license or aiding in the issuing of such a license, will hereby be terminated from their government position without pay

3) Every party member would be on the local radio stations, at rallies, at meetings, etc. telling everyone how radical judges were endangering democracy and the state will fight to defend the rights of the people.

This is what would happen if we had a free country. This is what would happen if the Repuke party had any spine!

[Pollster1]

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

I've never been a fan of that quote, and yet the rhyme is unavoidable:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union . . .

I hope these United States can remain together. I pray that, if we cannot remain united, the big government types (mostly but not exclusively the Democrats) will permit the free states to depart peaceably, or that the free states will expel the big government states from the Union peaceably. However, if there is a split, I will be on the side of the free states, whether it is Texas or South Carolina alone, or 39 states together expelling a few lost causes.

[Salvation]

Christian help == Courage and Encourage [spiritual support for persons w/ same-sex attraction who are striving...

[BeadCounter]

Dang! Way to go South Carolina, Give ‘Em Hell!

[SoFloFreeper]

Isaiah 5:20

[BeadCounter]

I suppose if South Carolina is brave here, that means they would be subject to lawsuits. Sad.

[babygene]

I think the best answer to this is for the states just to opt out of issuing any marriage licenses at all.

Leave it up to the churches and the witnesses to validate marriages. If it’s that important for the state to validate it, only issue a marriage license after one of the parties gives birth to a child.

[upchuck]

We be real stubborn in South Carolina.

South Carolina Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.

Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.

[demshateGod]

God knows what they’re doing. He doesn’t like it. He’s all powerful.

[Amendment10]

Given the remote possibility that some freepers and lurkers have not seen the following explanation of major constitutional problems concerning the Supreme Court wrongly legalizing gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution, you might find it interesting.

As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like marriage means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues.

The Constitution's silence about marriage also means that things like the so-called "right" of gay marriage is actually constitutionally unprotected, the 14th Amendment (14A) applying only constitutionally enumerated protections to the states as we shall see below.

So the states have the constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected power to make laws which prohibit gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

Getting back to 14A, judges who declare state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional are basing such statements on a PC interpration of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) in Section 1 of that amendment as per the following explanation.

Pro-gay activist judges are wrongly putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read the right to gay marriage into the EPC. But in doing so they are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has previously clarified that 14A didn't add new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens protections expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.

“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 [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

In fact, the Court's statement from Minor reflects the official clarification of the scope of 14A, the clarification mady by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1. Bingham had stated that the amendment applies only protections enumerated into the Constitution by the states to the states.

“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.)

Again, since the state have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay issues, gay marriage in this case, there is no enumerated constitutional protection for gay marriage for the courts to apply the states.

The question concerning the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue is this. Did pro-gay activist state lawmakers make laws to prohibit gay marriage for the real purpose of using them as pawns for pro-gay activist justices to ignore, both the states and the Court actually intending to promote the constitutionally unprotected gay agenda with such a ploy?

On the other hand, did the legal professionals who have dropped the baton on this issue study law at institutions which are actually teaching post FDR-era pervervions of the Constitution?

[PapaNew]

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not an oligarchy.

It’s time for the states to start nullifying such unconstitutional decisions.

Sooner or later, somebody’s got to reverse or nullify Supreme Court decisions that incorporate the 1st-6th Amendments into the 14th amendment thus inverting the purpose of the 1st-6th Amendments which specifically targets LIMITING federal government power. Instead, the convoluted “Incorporation Doctrine” astonishingly and unconstitutionally INCREASES the power of the federal government by allowing it to enforce the 1st-6th Amendments. This has lead to the unconstitutional usurping of state authority by the feds in cases like these gay marriage cases.

NULLIFY THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS!!!

[StoneWall Brigade]

Thanks as someone who is from West Virginia this is very sad however I am very proud of my new home state South Carolina fighting for states rights since 1861.

[Joe Boucher]

Morning Morgana,
Soooo, all them black church’s and black pastors and coal workers all supporting this kind of crap in W.V?

[elcid1970]

I have noticed that South Carolina has less of today’s social ills than its neighboring Southern states.

Whether it’s Muslims, liberal invaders, militant homosexuals, illegals, or gungrabbers, they all seem to keep to themselves and generally aren’t bothering the majority.

Several but by no means all of the reasons I love living here in the Palmetto State.

Not perfect, mind you. There’s Lindsey Graham & James Clyburn.

[highball]

“The Constitution’s silence about marriage also means that things like the so-called “right” of gay marriage is actually constitutionally unprotected”

Actually, that’s not true. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that we are not limited to the rights listed in the Constitution. There has long been an uneasy balance between the 9th and 10th for that reason.

The 10th Amendment argument would be the best one. But if we’re going to claim that marriage is not a right, as the Court has repeatedly found that it is, we’ll need a better argument than “not enumerated”.

[TomasUSMC]

BUY SOUTH CAROLINA