The only Right to marry is protected under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Religion. The states even using the word marriage in what legislation they enact usurps the rights of religious institutions.
Yet another way to skin the homosexual marriage cat...
This article is a little deep -no doubt I will have to read it several more times to fully disgest it...
Great article, and spot on.
It should be sent to Gov. Romney! He recently had a article written about him in the wall street journal. I haven't yet looked it up, but the following is MassNews.com's response.
‘Gay Marriage’ Is Legal in Massachusetts Only if Gov. Romney Continues to Allow It, He Made the Wall Street Journal Look Foolish in Saturday’s Weekend Edition
By MassNews Staff
A large two-column story of Mitt Romney and picture appeared in Saturday’s “Weekend Edition” of the Wall Street Journal where the newspaper repeated without comment, the Governor’s ridiculous claim that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.
Most observers in the state realize it is legal only if the Governor continues to allow it. They question whether Romney has the fortitude to take charge of the state to which he moved and to which he promised that he would enforce its Constitution.
Many in the executive branch of this country have refused to enforce court decisions which were invalid.
Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address refused to enforce the Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which did not recognize a free Negro before the Civil War.
Thomas Jefferson also challenged that same court in Marbury v. Madison where it declared a law to be unconstitutional.
Many similar refusals can be found in the law books of this country.
Serious Flaws
The serious flaws in the Journal story on Saturday are:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had just finished a speech when he was asked how religion would affect his campaign should he run for president in 2008.
"’You may have heard that I'm Mormon," Mr. Romney told the crowd, adding that it's ‘very difficult being Mormon in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legalized.’”
But that is not true. Gay marriage is “legalized” here only if the Governor decides that it is legal and he will enforce it. There were six Associate judges who heard the case with three approving gay marriage and three vehemently opposing it, saying it was illegal for the court to even consider such a ruling. This required the Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall, to rule even though she was not allowed to do so because she had already decided the case in that she had indicated to a homosexual group in 1999 that she would vote for gay marriage if such a case ever came before her.
“Though he failed in a bid to unseat Sen. Edward Kennedy in 1994, Mr. Romney won election as governor in the heavily Democratic state in 2002, erased the state's $3 billion deficit without raising taxes and launched a health-care plan to cover all state residents.”
Romney failed in his bid against Kennedy only because he ran a terrible campaign. In his first big debate, he turned to Kennedy and said, “And what are you going to do about the “glass ceiling?” Everyone gasped. That one moment was the end of Romney as a serious candidate. Kennedy believed that there should be stricter laws to help women in employment. Everyone knew except for Mitt Romney.
He still doesn’t understand that he became Governor in 2002 only because all the Democratic candidates came out in favor of gay marriage in this heavily Catholic state and Romney won by default although he is thoroughly disliked by the conservative base here, which would do nothing to help him. The reason he is running for President is that even he understands he could never be re-elected to anything in this state.
Romney erased the state deficit because the economy suddenly started booming everywhere because of President Bush’s tax policies.
His health care proposal will prove within a year to be a socialist disaster like Hillary Clinton's did in 1992 when she almost destroyed her husband’s Presidency and retreated to decorating the White House for two years while she was rehabilitated.
The article mentions Mike Murphy, a political consultant who has worked in the past with Mr. Romney. But it doesn’t mention that Murphy dropped Romney because he picked McCain as a possible winner, not Romney.
“As Mr. Romney and his wife posed for photos and chatted with a crowd of about 75 people.”
The article does not mention that when running for Governor, Romney embarrassed his wife, son and daughter-in-law because they were among the 130,000 successful signers of the Protection of Marriage Amendment in 2001 which would probably have stopped Judge Marshall from enacting gay marriage. It failed in 2001 only because the Democratic legislature violated the state’s constitution (according to a unanimous opinion of the state Supreme Court) and refused to allow a vote to take place in the legislature to send it to the voters for their approval (only 25% of legislators were required to approve it in the legislature).
Now, about this current imbroglio: look at what has happened since this landmark case.Should have been like this:
Now, about this current imbroglio: look at what has happened since the era of this landmark case.There were actually a number of Civil Rights Acts passed until the last one in 1875––when a lame duck Congress overreached itself and tried to enact civil rights which Persons could not disparage.
Now, about the end of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Acts Cases case: in 1875 the lame duck Republican Congress enacted a law in many ways similar to the laws of the 1960s; however, this law presumed to enact "privileges or immunities" which Persons could not disparage. No aspect of the 14th Amendment gave Congress such a power and the court ruled against the plaintiffs who had protested discrimination at the hands of Persons. In doing so Justice Bradley's majority opinion struck down the 1875 law as unconstitutional in its entirety.
What was never tested or opined upon––and part of why I viscerally deplore the opinion––was if the law was constitutional with respect to discrimination in publicly funded accommodations (as indeed it would, since such would have been a State or local government disparaging a "privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States;") or if the law was proper for territories and possessions.
In essence: had Justice Bradley's opinion been more nuanced the very worst of Jim Crow and Segregation would never have happened; instead, the several States proceeded to ignore all Civil Rights Acts on the strength of this wholesale rejection of ONE law which really had limited (yet very important) legality ... and maybe also with the parroting of the radical's slur of Slaughterhouse, now to opposed and ignoble ends.
As for the other aspects of Justice Bradley's opinion and one aspect of the article quotes in the OP. The founding of the Republican party was a coalition between abolitionist and those who desired the supremacy of the Federal ... something the writer ignores. Once slavery had been abolished and reconstruction had exhausted the electoral fortunes of the party what remained was the core of those who sought Federal supremacy––like the ultra radical Justice Bradley. These brought about the end of the legacy of reconstruction in pursuit of this other ideal.
Booth may have shot Lincoln but Bradely put the proverbial dagger in his back.
Shameless Bumpage
Legally, I can't see how this is even feasible.
Outside its area of enumerated jurisdiction, the federal government doesn't even HAVE any 'civil authority' because it's not a civil entity, it's an administrative one.
And you're right, it doesn't have the authority to extend itself beyond that, no matter which of the 3 branches it is.