Posted on 10/19/2013 10:05:49 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Perhaps. But it has been a big topic lately with many of my friends, seeing America, which was once the greatest force for good the world has ever seen... to its current state of decay: one-party statism, a vile and poisonous culture, the embrace of abject deviancy and perversion via homo marriage, etc., ... in which America appears to be transitioning towards becoming an actual force of evil in the world. It’s a mind-blowing reversal. What a destiny.
Marriage is the union of a male and a female, anything else is a farce.
I should have expanded on constitutional problems with so-called gay rights in my previous post. Let me explain.
What pro-gay activist justices and judges don't want voters to know about the so-called constitutionality of gay rights is the following. Not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, but the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like gay rights means that it is up to the individual states, ultimately a state's voters, to decide yes or no to such issues.
But as a consequence of Calforinia citizens probably not knowing their constitutional protections, activist justices and judges have so far gotten away with using a PC interpretation of the equal protections clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.
In fact, pro-gay activist justices and judges probably don't want citizens to know that the Supreme Court had previously clarified in Minor v. Happersett that the 14th Amendment did not add to existing constituitional protections regardless of PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause.
"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, 1984.
And the only right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect on the basis is sex is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
In fact, the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of any criterion which the states have not amended the Constitution to expressly protect. Regarding such laws, the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause essentially requires the states to either discriminate against equally, or favor equally, concerning everybody affected by that criterion imo.
Again, Jersey and California voters can take a couple of hours to get themselves up to speed on the Constitution and case precedent relevant to constitutionally unprotected "gay rights," or they deserve to be swallowed by social Darwinism imo.
Going all the way back to the 1970’s, the New Jersey Supreme Court has been a complete joke, on issue after issue. If you look up leftwing judicial activism in the dictionary you’ll see a picture of this awful court. Everything from the communist Mt. Laurel decisions (every town in the state must build affordable housing), to the obscene family of Abbott decisions (the judiciary basically took it on itself to pass school spending bills), to garbage like this.
I have personal experience with a family member who clerked for one of the Justices after law school. The justices were mostly career political activists, and showed little inclination to even attempt to hide those biases. Every case was approached with a results-oriented mindset.
In short, this is a terribly politicized court where the quality of the judges, in terms of judicial temperment, is among the worst in the country.
“The courts do not have the power to order any governor or legislature to do anything. It is the executive branch that holds the power and the legislature that holds the purse strings and can throw out judges if it wants to”.
“No modern politico wants his place in history as defying homosexual marriage”.
If the voters want fag “marriage” let them vote it in! Anything else is pure liberal activist GARBAGE. And yes Christie could say no one issues a fag “marriage” certificate as long as he is governor. But RINOs could care less. Hope to see Christie run for president one day......as a democrat!
Well, yes. I did not suggest otherwise. Tell it to the NJ Supremes.
“What exactly are voters supposed to do?”
With John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, not one damn thing. They WILL ALWAYS VOTE with the sodomites. Um, I wonder why?
I think we know the answer.
Using your faulty reasoning, Obama and Reid’s Senate can “throw out judges if it wants to” and thus just remake SCOTUS at will.
Not even the voters can force such an abomination upon Christianity in America and in itself, the very existence of Gay Marriage violates the First Amendment as it prohibits Christians from practicing their religion.
Consider what it must be like to be a Christian in New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Conn., Vermont, Minnesota, Delaware, Maryland or Maine and have to endure that state itself violating your First Amendment Rights each and every day.
Christie will not do it, but we need a governor who will defy any court order or even any referendum by the people who impose gay marriage upon the people.
It just needs to happen in one state and such a stand in a courthouse door would inspire a nation.
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.