Posted on 05/14/2014 11:26:52 AM PDT by GIdget2004
U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale has denied Gov. Butch Otter's motion for a stay on her decision overturning Idaho's ban on same-sex marriages.
After Dale's ruling on Tuesday, Otter requested that an emergency hearing before Judge Dale take place before noon Wednesday on his request for a stay. Otter asked that no marriages be permitted until "completion of all appeals."
Dale denied both of Otter's requests.
“Judge Dale’s denial of the state’s request for a stay of her decision on same-sex marriage is regrettable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a similar case, but not surprising. We will appeal to the 9th Circuit Court,” said Otter.
Otter said today he will file motions for an emergency hearing and a stay with the 9th Circuit Court.
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden is preparing his own request for a stay, which should be filed today. Wasden is also preparing to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Gay couples could flood courthouses Friday morning, seeking to exercise a newly declared right to marry in Idaho.
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatesman.com ...
Otter should freeze all new marriage licenses for the state, if necessary, since that would not be discriminatory.
Put up a hashtag.
I don’t see how Windsor requires this decision.
The Windsor decision was that the federal government would recognize same-sex marriages from states in which same-sex marriage was legal. It did not compel states which did not allow same-sex marriage to allow it.
Judge Candy Dale? Sounds like a stripper.
I can’t tell you how much I despise these liberal judges who think they’re super legislators. I can tell you this. Even if I was a liberal judge who seriously believed homosexual “marriage” was justified as equal treatment under the law, I would in no way allow these marriages to proceed until the opposing side had a chance to appeal. After all, we’re talking about overthrowing state constitutional amendments passed by voting majorities, and those voters deserve to be treated with respect, too.
It’s not like homosexual “marriage” existed and was then taken away. The homosexuals never had it to start with, so what’s the real harm of having them wait a bit longer? No one is preventing them from having sex or committing to a monogamous relationship with a person of their choice.
Additionally, these judges are completely ignoring previous Supreme Court rulings and precedents. The Supreme Court has never given any indication that it thinks homosexual marriage is a constitutional right. Unless my memory is wrong, I don’t recall the Supreme Court overturning state bans on homosexual marriage when it tossed out DADT.
So it really comes down to some radical judges who spit in our faces to impose political agendas. Those judges should be impeached. They don’t respect both sides and aren’t hearing the issue fairly. They’re acting like super legislators. Again, they deserve impeachment, but I’m not holding my breath. I can write this, though. King George never had it so good as these tyrants in black robes!
“Otter said today he will file motions for an emergency hearing and a stay with the 9th Circuit Court.”
This may be the nightmare case. From Idaho, to the 9th Circuit and then on to Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Bryer at the Supreme Court.
Idaho is one state where you might see a Bundy-supporter type response to this.
“Otter said today he will file motions for an emergency hearing and a stay with the 9th Circuit Court.”
This may be the nightmare case. From Idaho, to the 9th Circuit and then on to Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Bryer at the Supreme Court.
_________________________________
I’ll make a prediction; next year, 2015, SCOTUS will rule 6-3 in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, based on the Idaho case.
Every single christian church should explicitly declare that they will no longer act as agents of the state in performing civil marriages - that they will only perform religious marriage ceremonies that have no basis whatsoever for the civil union aspects of “marriage” as it is defined by the state.
“I’ll make a prediction; next year, 2015, SCOTUS will rule 6-3 in favor of nationwide same-sex marriage, based on the Idaho case.”
It does appear to be the perfect storm.
Idaho will rush to the 9th Circuit where in all likelihood the state will lose and then to the SCOTUS and we know that will turn out.
This is the worst of all the recent lower court rulings on the issue.
Idaho will rush to the 9th Circuit where in all likelihood the state will lose and then to the SCOTUS and we know that will turn out.
This is the worst of all the recent lower court rulings on the issue.
_______________________
Yep; I’m thinking this is THE deciding case.
No such thing as a same sex marriage.
Just don’t do it, Otter.
Judges do not get to write law.
Yes. This judge should be impeached. In US v. Windsor, the Supreme Court majority ruling affirmed a state’s right to define marriage. Kennedy wrote, state governments have a “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.”
I agree the gay mafia is using US v. Windsor to justify changing state definitions of marriage, but that is simply not what “authority to define” means. In other words, they’re pulling a sham on Americans, and the lower courts are complicit. The states either have a right to define marriage or not, and US v. Windsor said it’s up to the states. One cannot reasonably argue the states get to decide and then throw out their decisions!
The only legitimate ruling based on US v. Windsor would be to uphold a state’s right to define marriage however it wanted, so long as that definition didn’t directly contradict specifically enumerated constitutional protections, like bans on marriage between races. Why? Race is constitutionally protected. Sexual preference is not.
Read my response in post #33. The homosexualists are reading something into US v Windsor that simply isn’t there. So what if Kennedy wrote he thought children in homosexual relationships might be saddened if their parents were treated differently than heterosexual couples. When push came to shove, the Supreme Court did NOT overturn state bans on homosexual “marriage” and it specifically wrote that states get to define marriage.
How a judge can go from states get to define marriage to homosexual marriage is constitutionally mandated, I don’t know. There is no rational, legal argument for that based on US v. Windsor or anything else. The federal government and the US Constitution has never, ever been construed to mean homosexuality is a protected class. These judges are making this crap up out of whole cloth!
“This may be the nightmare case.”
Maybe so, but this issue is going back to the Supreme Court one way or the other. The Supreme Court has already ruled that states get to define marriage. It doesn’t matter. These lower court legislator wannabes are pushing an agenda, so it’s going back to the SCOTUS.
I’d rather quit playing games with the left. They’re doing another Roe v. Wade end around, and they apparently think we don’t know exactly what they’re up to. We do.
So let’s get this over with. The correct ruling would be to force homosexualists to win this democratically in the states. The other potential ruling would basically confirm the Supreme Court is a bunch of legal barbarians who make law up as they go.
Frankly, I’d rather the tyrants in black robes be exposed for what they are. I’m sick of the big act, like this is still a free country or that our leaders have any respect whatsoever for the will of the people. It’s unlikely, but maybe then people will start waking up to what’s really going on. This is no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave!
Exactly. We need governors with spines.
You’re right that the Supreme Court didn’t specifically rule on state marriage law, but if the left can claim comments made in the ruling justify a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, then I think I have just as much right to point out comments that showed the historical right of states to determine marriage law.
If the Supreme Court subsequently holds that homosexual marriage is constitutionally mandated, they are making it up out of whole cloth. Again, sexual preference, gender identity, and all of the other LBGTQ-whatever nonsense is exactly that. Those aren’t one of the constitutionally protected classifications, like race, sex, or religion.
I know the Supreme Court has ruled it doesn’t matter if the states have traditionally done something. If it’s a federal power that hasn’t been used and the federal government suddenly wants to take control, then they can (per the SCOTUS). That is an obscene distortion of the US Constitution which specifically and intentionally reserved all powers not specifically enumerated to the states and the people. In other words, that excuse for the feds to overrule the states only applies if the power was specifically granted to the fed to start with, and no one can rationally argue homosexual marriage was part of any enumerated federal power. It’s not commerce between the states. It’s not a protected classification like race, sex, or religion.
There’s only one legitimate and moral way to understand the US Constitution, and the only justice I know who comes really close is Justice Thomas. Any time there’s any doubt about whether the fed can do something, the benefit of doubt goes to the states and the people, because that is what the constitution clearly intends in the 10th Amendment.
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.
