- Thread starter
- #21
Another absurd comment by U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle
Judge Hinkle wrote in his opinion that:
” The founders of this nation said in the preamble to the United States Constitution that a goal was to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Liberty has come more slowly for some than for others. It was 1967, nearly two centuries after the Constitution was adopted, before the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, thus protecting the liberty of individuals whose chosen life partner was of a different race. Now, nearly 50 years later, the arguments supporting the ban on interracial marriage seem an obvious pretext for racism; it must be hard for those who were not then of age to understand just how sincerely those views were held. When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination. Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held.”--my emphasis.
What Hinkle overlooks is, those who respect the Constitution and the rule of law, regardless of how they may feel about same sex couples not having been recognized by a State as a married couple, will conclude Judge Hinkle engaged in judicial tyranny and took it upon himself to do for the people that which the people did not willingly do with a constitutional amendment as was done with the 14th Amendment when the nation knowingly and willingly decided to forbid a state to adopt or enforce laws which made distinctions based upon race or color.
What Judge Hinkle refuses to admit in his written opinion is, there is no provision in the federal Constitution which is intended to forbid a State to define marriage as a union between one male and one female for the purposes of issuing a marriage license. Additionally and contrary to Hinkle’s innuendo, homosexual couples are at liberty in the State of Florida to choose a “life partner” of the same sex regardless of whether or not the State chooses to not recognize their personal doings as a “marriage”.
One of the most important features of our system of government is federalism which it is summed up as follows in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Under federalism, each state is free to define and issue marriage licenses as it chooses, so long as there is no distinction made with reference to race or color which is intended to be forbidden under the 14th Amendment. The State of Maryland, e.g., has decided to issue same sex marriage licenses in compliance with exercising its reserved powers protected under the 10th Amendment. By contrast, the State of Florida, exercising its reserved powers has decided to not redefine “marriage” for the purpose of issuing a marriage license. And instead of Judge Hinkle respecting and defending constitutional limits and the reserved powers of Florida, he has knowingly and willingly engaged in judicial tyranny by fraudulently declaring Florida’s duly enacted law is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment which in fact was never intended to alter the definition of marriage as adopted by the State of Florida.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Judge Hinkle wrote in his opinion that:
” The founders of this nation said in the preamble to the United States Constitution that a goal was to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Liberty has come more slowly for some than for others. It was 1967, nearly two centuries after the Constitution was adopted, before the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, thus protecting the liberty of individuals whose chosen life partner was of a different race. Now, nearly 50 years later, the arguments supporting the ban on interracial marriage seem an obvious pretext for racism; it must be hard for those who were not then of age to understand just how sincerely those views were held. When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination. Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held.”--my emphasis.
What Hinkle overlooks is, those who respect the Constitution and the rule of law, regardless of how they may feel about same sex couples not having been recognized by a State as a married couple, will conclude Judge Hinkle engaged in judicial tyranny and took it upon himself to do for the people that which the people did not willingly do with a constitutional amendment as was done with the 14th Amendment when the nation knowingly and willingly decided to forbid a state to adopt or enforce laws which made distinctions based upon race or color.
What Judge Hinkle refuses to admit in his written opinion is, there is no provision in the federal Constitution which is intended to forbid a State to define marriage as a union between one male and one female for the purposes of issuing a marriage license. Additionally and contrary to Hinkle’s innuendo, homosexual couples are at liberty in the State of Florida to choose a “life partner” of the same sex regardless of whether or not the State chooses to not recognize their personal doings as a “marriage”.
One of the most important features of our system of government is federalism which it is summed up as follows in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Under federalism, each state is free to define and issue marriage licenses as it chooses, so long as there is no distinction made with reference to race or color which is intended to be forbidden under the 14th Amendment. The State of Maryland, e.g., has decided to issue same sex marriage licenses in compliance with exercising its reserved powers protected under the 10th Amendment. By contrast, the State of Florida, exercising its reserved powers has decided to not redefine “marriage” for the purpose of issuing a marriage license. And instead of Judge Hinkle respecting and defending constitutional limits and the reserved powers of Florida, he has knowingly and willingly engaged in judicial tyranny by fraudulently declaring Florida’s duly enacted law is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment which in fact was never intended to alter the definition of marriage as adopted by the State of Florida.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
