Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
> By the authority of the violence at its command
In other words, no authority at all.
I would guess because we have a constitution that we think is supposed to protect us from abuses like this. We're busy perusing our chosen paths to happiness and we forgot liberty requires eternal vigilance.
We were naïve enough to believe we put people in office who were going to represent us and uphold our founding documents with honor and integrity.
I dunno, I am sure you can add to the list....it is quite long.
Did you miss the part where I pointed out the governor is a Democrat, who has already told her to issue the marriage licenses? Are you honestly delusional enough to believe he is going to call a special session to deal with this?
If the legislature is convened in emergency session, they can pass a law immediately stripping all clerks of duties to issue marriage licenses.
Yes, and the horse might talk too.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky voluntarily joined the union after seceding from the State of Virginia. In being admitted to statehood it agreed to subject itself to the supremacy of the federal constitution and by extension the federal courts. You don't have to always agree with the federal government - I sure don't - but it's still the government.
My Daughter is gay, that being said, this is straight Soviet Union tactics to silence opponents and what is sad to me is there are millions cheering this. What happens when it is Patriot Conservatives next because we don’t agree? There will be millions of Liberals cheering it on. America is lost.
Are you going to stop them?
I disagree. No one has been denied equal protection of the law.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
The advocates of this novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights. Again, there is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States and declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” nor is there any such “fundamental right”
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue.
Perhaps. But I remember reading somewhere, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
Of course they do. The same rights as any of the couples who are living together without licensure.
The state began mandating licensure in the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to that people posted marriage bands, committing themselves to the marriage and providing for children as they came along.
Are you completely ignorant of the history of marriage?
I am not arguing that there is an “equal protection” violation. I am arguing that the Judges assert that there is, and then use that rationalization to do whatever they want.
If Kentuckians put enough pressure on him, I have no doubt that he will.
Carry on.
I’m bumping your post so I may copy it later.
Thanks in advance.
Are you aware of the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment? Ever since Constitution-ignoring FDR established a majority of activist justices, the Supreme Court has been wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected powers on many issues, gay “marriage” an example.
More specifically regarding the so-called right to gay “marriage,” Obama’s pro-gay activist justices have wrongly ignored that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protect laws to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay “marriage” because activist justices actually don’t have a constitutionally enumerated right to gay “marriage” to throw at the states through the 14th Amendment (14A).
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that 14A applies only constitutionally enumerated personal rights 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].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
And the reason that activist justices are getting away with legislating things like gay agenda rights from the bench is because they know that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate will not lift a finger to remove them from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt Senators and activist justices along with it.
OK. I agree with that. I misunderstood you to be saying there *is* an equal protection violation.
Some judges claim there is, but they - well they’re liars.
...”it won’t be long before they extend that same rule of law to the rest of us.”
Right you are, and I predict school teachers and administrators who refuse to actively promote sodomy in the classroom will be next in line to be jailed.
What a lot of you Libertarian types never fully grasp is that you cannot have a morality free government. You are going to get some sort of morality imposed on you, the only question is who's?
> I question your reading comprehension. Pope John Paul II died. The College of Cardinals then elected Cardinal Ratzinger pope, who became Benedict XVI. Benedict then resigned SEVERAL years later.
I was wrong. I posted the wrong name accidentally. It wasn’t intentionally.
Carter didn't start the war between Iran and Iraq that killed a million people, but it certainly wouldn't have happened had he not been so stupid when he was President.
You are trying to separate what Lincoln did from the consequences of it.
Government “against itself” as you put it, would be nazi soldiers refusing to man the gas chambers. So, you’d object to that, apparently.
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.