Judge strikes down Arkansas's Gay Marriage Ban

[bodecea]

So much for that old "will of the people" deal.

For your reading pleasure: The United States Constitution

I read it and there is no mention of a Right to pack fudge. .

Nothing making it illegal either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have read it. Right down to the 9th and 10th Amendments, sport-o.

Nowhere in there is any expressed or implied power for the feds to be involved in marriage.

Reading and comprehending are two different things, you obviously failed to do the latter.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly establishes the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, acts of Congress, and rulings by the Federal courts are supreme.

Moreover, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, which has consistently held since the advent of the Republic as to the supremacy of the Federal government (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

 

[bodecea]

Nobody is oppressing anyone. Nobody is hating.

Quit yer whining.

Then why deny them the right to marry who they love?

Because it is not a right and it is not about love.

Why are you progressives such suckers for disingenuous sob stories?

The Supreme Court and Legal precedent disagrees with you.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I have read it. Right down to the 9th and 10th Amendments, sport-o.

Nowhere in there is any expressed or implied power for the feds to be involved in marriage.

Reading and comprehending are two different things, you obviously failed to do the latter.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly establishes the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, acts of Congress, and rulings by the Federal courts are supreme.

Moreover, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, which has consistently held since the advent of the Republic as to the supremacy of the Federal government (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

You really do blow harder than hurricane Katrina. And you couldn't care less about original intent.

Where is the duly passed federal marriage statute, to be held supreme to any state statute?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Then why deny them the right to marry who they love?

Because it is not a right and it is not about love.

Why are you progressives such suckers for disingenuous sob stories?

The Supreme Court and Legal precedent disagrees with you.

Which legal precedent, Loving?

That involved a man and a woman.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The faggots around here know how to keep their cock sucking mouths shut. I'd really hate to be a fag in this state when the sun goes down. The courts ruling is inconsequential to the throw down that is eventually coming.

 

[Nyvin]

The faggots around here know how to keep their cock sucking mouths shut. I'd really hate to be a fag in this state when the sun goes down. The courts ruling is inconsequential to the throw down that is eventually coming.

That's a seriously disgusting statement

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have read it. Right down to the 9th and 10th Amendments, sport-o.

Nowhere in there is any expressed or implied power for the feds to be involved in marriage.

Reading and comprehending are two different things, you obviously failed to do the latter.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly establishes the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government, acts of Congress, and rulings by the Federal courts are supreme.

Moreover, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, which has consistently held since the advent of the Republic as to the supremacy of the Federal government (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

You really do blow harder than hurricane Katrina. And you couldn't care less about original intent.

Where is the duly passed federal marriage statute, to be held supreme to any state statute?

The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

That includes the authority of the Federal courts to invalidate state measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

The 14th Amendment compels the states and other jurisdictions to allow American citizens access to their laws, including gay Americans access to marriage law.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Apples and submarines.

The terms of service for federal politicians are spelled out in the Constitution.

Again, where is the duly passed federal marriage statute, Mr. F. Lee Turley?

 

[Steinlight]

The faggots around here know how to keep their cock sucking mouths shut. I'd really hate to be a fag in this state when the sun goes down. The courts ruling is inconsequential to the throw down that is eventually coming.

That's a seriously disgusting statement

Homosexuality is a seriously disgusting act.

 

[DriftingSand]

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Sorry I don't support the idea that a majority has the right oppress a minority out of hate.

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

 

[deltex1]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

Doth that set your sphincter aquiver?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays will pretend that the people of the state wanted it all along.

 

[DriftingSand]

Gays will pretend that the people of the state wanted it all along.

Arkansas gays in action:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBnsvrXmD84]Deliverance. And you better pray good....Burt Reynolds, John Voight early roles - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Sorry I don't support the idea that a majority has the right oppress a minority out of hate.

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

This doesn’t make any sense, as usual.

Again, the United States is not a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly – the Arkansas measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

Although democracy is a component of our republican form of government, it doesn’t authorize the people to violate the rights of their fellow citizens; one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence.

As a fact of Constitutional law, therefore, the residents of Arkansas do not have the authority to exclude same-sex couples access to the state’s marriage law, regardless what the people might ‘will.’

 

[Silhouette]

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

SCOTUS doesn't make complex legal decisions via "popularity" that will also include, btw, the forcing of polygamy on the states and any other consenting "adults in love" combinations in marriage.

Besides, if the cause were truly popular, activist judges wouldn't have to overturn clear majority-voted laws in those states that require people to be one adult man and one adult woman, not related by blood too closely, in order to marry.

If it really was popularity that SCOTUS used to make a decision, it would be banning gay marriage in the states where they do not qualify according to law.

You might want to read up on the Windsor decision last year to determine the thinking behind who SCOTUS believes should decide on gay marriage. I'll give you a hint: the numbers of "who" are vastly more numerous than one activist judge speaking against the will of a vast majority of people...affecting a dictatorship in violation of duly enacted law and the language of Windsor.

 

[Political Junky]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Public opinion polls in the United States since 2010 show majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, as polls since 2010 consistently indicate support above 50%.[1] Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.[2][3][4][5] An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage,[6] with nearly all subsequent polls showing majority support.[7][8][9][10]

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you see, public support is way up, but we don't vote to grant human rights. The USSC has said so.

 

[Plasmaball]

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Sorry I don't support the idea that a majority has the right oppress a minority out of hate.

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

En you have to admit you dont understand our laws

 

[DriftingSand]

Sorry I don't support the idea that a majority has the right oppress a minority out of hate.

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

This doesn’t make any sense, as usual.

Again, the United States is not a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men; as men are incapable of ruling justly – the Arkansas measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights is proof of that.

Although democracy is a component of our republican form of government, it doesn’t authorize the people to violate the rights of their fellow citizens; one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence.

As a fact of Constitutional law, therefore, the residents of Arkansas do not have the authority to exclude same-sex couples access to the state’s marriage law, regardless what the people might ‘will.’

Well -- I know it's a Constitutional Republic but you will hear the political talking heads (including Obama and H. Clinton) calling it a Democracy ALL THE TIME. So my point is that your idols can't call this nation a Democracy if they don't allow the vote of the People to stand on a State by State basis.

But to the point of this nation being a Constitutional Republic one of the checks built into our system is that the Federal Government could not dictate State law. The Fed's power was to be limited to the following, exclusive powers:

Exclusive Powers of the National Government
Under the Constitution, powers reserved to the national government include:

Print money (bills and coins)
Declare war
Establish an army and navy
Enter into treaties with foreign governments
Regulate commerce between states and international trade
Establish post offices and issue postage
Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution

Powers granted to the States:

Exclusive Powers of State Governments
Powers reserved to state governments include:


Establish local governments
Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)
Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
Conduct elections
Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Provide for public health and safety
Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.
Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)

Federalism: National vs. State Government

Nowhere in the Federal or State constitutions do mentally ill folks have special rights set aside just for them. So, since the Constitution of the USA doesn't grant special rights to homosexuals then States are not bound by Constitutional law to grant special rights either. That makes the issue of "gay marriage" a State issue (since States are responsible for licensing marriage) and the gay, federal judges have no right to interfere with State elections concerning the issue.

Redefining the term "marriage" isn't necessary as a means to allow homosexuals to enter into a legal, civil union.

 

[DriftingSand]

Sorry I don't support the idea that a majority has the right oppress a minority out of hate.

Then you never again have the right to consider America a "democracy." Why vote at all?

En you have to admit you dont understand our laws

See post above. Then admit that YOU don't understand our laws. Where in the Constitution is there a special provision for mentally (spiritually) ill, homosexuals?