Oklahoma lawmaker's 'clergy only' policy for marriage licenses aimed at stopping same-sex unions

AL.com ^ | 01/26/2015 | Leada Gore

[Amendment10]

As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues like gay marriage. So regardless that pro-gay activist judges are hiding behind a PC interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to argue that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, there is actually nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state’s legal majority voters from exercising their 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.

Regarding pro-gay interpetations of the EPC, note that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens those 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.

Again, activist justices and judges have no constitutionally enumerated gay rights protections to apply to the states via 14A. Sadly, the reason that judges are getting away striking down legitimate state prohibitions on gay marriage, imo, is because parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected “rights.”

[Steve_Seattle]

"Even if the law is passed and signed won’t last one second in the courts. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment."

I agree.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Tar... Feather... Rail...