Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 11/06/2014 2:19:13 PM PST by AbortionIsEvil
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, reversing a recent trend in the federal courts to strike down such bans.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Next they’ll be claiming the GOP took the Senate . . .
This issue belongs in the states. There is no such thing as a federal marriage license.
The BANNS of marriage go hand in hand with the BANS of so-called gay marriage
This is what the USSC was apparently waiting for.
USSC justices’ opinions often quote decision verbiage from the court that it is upholding when there is a split. Even if it was sympathetic to the conservative side, there wasn’t any source material for it use... at least till now.
Isn’t it an adage (though not a requirement), the court follows the election returns? Well, now it can. Looks like the door just came off of the conservative cage. Rooooooarrrrr.
In 1971 a homosexual man filed a lawsuit and tried to force gay marriage on a state. It went all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled that it was permissible for a state to ban homo marriage, since there is no constitutional right for homo marriage. This was the exact reason that a judge in Puerto Rico ruled in favor of the ban.
ALL THIS TIME, the homos had NO right to homo marriage.
The recent lower court judges that forced homo marriage on all the states should now be tried and executed.
It had managed to hijack the civil rights movement. It had a superficial rationale for doing so: its hollow arrangement was no worse than the current hollow state of the traditional arrangement. I think it was a warning from God about where we were headed. We may be about to dodge another bullet. But let’s not forget the lesson.
YEAH! First the election, this this, couldn’t be a better week ;-)!
I wouldn't be too hopeful on the SCOTUS; John Roberts is a known homosexualist and his firm did pro-bono work for gay activists.
The idea that two men could ever really “marry” is not just gross...its stupid.
nooooo, just Tared and Feathered then run out of town on a freshsplit wood rail.
If the government wants to treat two people legally that way, I couldn’t care less. Calling it marriage is absurd. For taxes, work benefits, visitations, etc...not too worried about that. We just have to somehow steer this conversation back to common sense.
I was at an event recently where a guy referred to going back home to his husband, and I froze up. I have tons of gay friends and work relationships, but the idea of it being a husband and husband is just ridiculous.
Do you remember the name of the case?
Sodomy is not marriage.
More specifically, and as mentioned in related threads, note that regardless that activist justices have been using a PC interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause to justify striking down state laws prohibiting gay marriage, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A did not add any new protections to the Constitution.
“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 reflected the official clarification of John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, concerning the scope of that amendment.
“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.)
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay “rights,” gay marriage in this example, these pro-gay rights judges actually have no constitutionally enumerated gay protections to apply to the states via 14A. In other words, they are wrongly subverting the will of the Article V state majority by amending gay “rights” to the Constitution from the bench.
Obviously, the States should decide. Perhaps this election indicates a swing back to Conservative values and the SCOTUS will act more properly. It seems that extremism was the rule of law with the Democrats who were in power but now things have changed, seemingly.
“This one will go to SCOTUS for sure”
Where it will be reversed. The USSC is evil.
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.