Fed judge rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[gabosaurus]

Ruling just came down from a federal court in Boston.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

[HogTrash]

And the left marches forward with it's agenda of socialism and immorality.

They vow never to rest untill the evil white capitalist empire is destroyed.

:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, the left turns to unelected judges to overturn the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Where will the appeal be brought?

[Missileman]

As usual, the left turns to unelected judges to overturn the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Where will the appeal be brought?

It's the judiciary's job to determine whether a law is constitutional. Let's not forget our elected officials are the one's who brought us the healthcare bill, which more than a few of us are hoping a judge will find unconstitutional, and the more recent moratorium on off-shore drilling which was IMO, rightly overturned by a judge.

Those who would squawk because they don't care for this ruling should remember they can't have it both ways.

[Little-Acorn]

It's the judiciary's job to determine whether a law is constitutional. Let's not forget our elected officials are the one's who brought us the healthcare bill, which more than a few of us are hoping a judge will find unconstitutional, and the more recent moratorium on off-shore drilling which was IMO, rightly overturned by a judge.

Those who would squawk because they don't care for this ruling should remember they can't have it both ways.

The idea that the Framers intended for same-sex marriages to be the law of the land, is one of the weirder examples of wishful thinking the left-fanatics come up with.

I'm pretty sure that the reason the Framers never mentioned it in the Constitution, is because they were absolutely sure that, even with the incredible range of twisted and warped things they knew governments could come up with, they never imagined in their wildest dreams that any state govt would approve that.

Judges who disagree with that, I disagree with.

[KarlMarx]

It's the judiciary's job to determine whether a law is constitutional. Let's not forget our elected officials are the one's who brought us the healthcare bill, which more than a few of us are hoping a judge will find unconstitutional, and the more recent moratorium on off-shore drilling which was IMO, rightly overturned by a judge.

Those who would squawk because they don't care for this ruling should remember they can't have it both ways.

And just HOW is a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional? The framers of the constitution gave the states the right to grant or deny those rights not in the constitution. And please don't tell me that it's unequal protection under the law. It isn't. Gays have all the rights that straight people do... marriage is NOT a right. If marriage were a right, then divorce should be unconstitutional.

The only reason that marriage became a right is because the gays want to be married. Well, the voters in many states don't want to let them marry... so if they want to, let them move to Holland (and good riddance, too)

And believe me, it won't stop if and when gays get to marry. Eventually, they will want gender neutrality... so then men and women will have to use the same rest room... a guy can wear a dress to work (and why stop there? Perhaps he'll just come to work in lingerie).....

You know what? Society got along fine and raised a lot of fine people without gays being able to marry. If they want to bugger each other in the privacy of their homes, fine. When you push your gay tendencies in public, I have a problem with it.

[Missileman]

The idea that the Framers intended for same-sex marriages to be the law of the land, is one of the weirder examples of wishful thinking the left-fanatics come up with.


As this judge argued, I don't think the framers intended there be any "law of the land" as it pertains to marriage.

[Missileman]

And just HOW is a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional? The framers of the constitution gave the states the right to grant or deny those rights not in the constitution. And please don't tell me that it's unequal protection under the law. It isn't. Gays have all the rights that straight people do... marriage is NOT a right. If marriage were a right, then divorce should be unconstitutional.

The only reason that marriage became a right is because the gays want to be married. Well, the voters in many states don't want to let them marry... so if they want to, let them move to Holland (and good riddance, too)

And believe me, it won't stop if and when gays get to marry. Eventually, they will want gender neutrality... so then men and women will have to use the same rest room... a guy can wear a dress to work (and why stop there? Perhaps he'll just come to work in lingerie).....

You know what? Society got along fine and raised a lot of fine people without gays being able to marry. If they want to bugger each other in the privacy of their homes, fine. When you push your gay tendencies in public, I have a problem with it.

The judge's position is that there is no authority in the US Constitution for the feds to establish a national marriage policy.

[bullypulpit]

As usual, the left turns to unelected judges to overturn the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Where will the appeal be brought?

Gosh...Isn't that what the Roberts SCOTUS did in the case of CItizen's United v. FEC? Didn't they overturn the will of the people and nearly a century of legal precedent with THAT decision? Or maybe you found the judicial activism inherent in Brown v. Board of Education a step too far? Oh...wait...that's right. When the right does it...it's justice. When the left does it, it's "judicial activism". You're an idiot.

[bullypulpit]

The court made its decision based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It failed to examine the question of just what interest the government, whether state or local, has in determining whether two consenting, adults can marry, join in a civil union or whatever else one might choose to call it. Beyond the contractual relationship established between the individuals, same or different gender, the state has no compelling interest in deciding whether or not two competent, consenting adults can marry. Claims to the contrary are little more than attempts to institutionalize discrimination based upon religious doctrine.

[darin]

Does the state have an interest in promoting healthy relationships? Does the state -have an interest in controlling and regulating OTHER privledges?

[red states rule]

Gosh...Isn't that what the Roberts SCOTUS did in the case of CItizen's United v. FEC? Didn't they overturn the will of the people and nearly a century of legal precedent with THAT decision? Or maybe you found the judicial activism inherent in Brown v. Board of Education a step too far? Oh...wait...that's right. When the right does it...it's justice. When the left does it, it's "judicial activism". You're an idiot.

BP I do believe it has happened. You sprew the liberal lies and talking so much - you actually start to think they are true

Allow me to once again further your education when it comes to current events and facts





The high court’s 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said.

“I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities,” the president said. “They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60660





So you see BP, the Court did not overturn "nearly a century of legal precedent"

But you were never one to let facts get in the way of your rants and support for liberalism

The bottom line is, liberals have taken yet another issue that a huge majority of voters are opposed to, and libs give them a one finger salute while telling them they know what is best for them and America

Add this to the AZ law, Obamacare, off shore drilling, spending and deficits - all of which libs are opposing the majority in polls

It's OK, Novemeber will be here before you know it and the unemployment rate with elected Democrats will be much higher after the election

[Insein]

Federal government should not be involved in the decision either way. Just like abortion, it should be left to the states to decide.

[Binky]

Personally, I don't care what they do behind closed doors. I just hate the fact that my granddaughters are having to learn about the crapola in school. Alternative lifestyles.......right..........we all know what the alternative of hetrosexual is....Why the heck do the powers that be feel the need to indoctrinate that crap into our youth? Disgusting.

We are bombarded in the movies and media with homosexuals and their activites. Nothing is left to the imagination. I suppose one day we'll all be subjected to the lifestyles of those who are into beastiallity. :eek: Just what I'd love for our youth to be learning about. Twenty years from now they'll be shouting to the rooftops as to their love lives with their cows, pigs, whatever. Then they too, will be demanding their right to marry the animal... Insanity.........:eek:

[Sweetchuck]

I'm more concerned that this is a federal ruling.

It's clear that socialists are amassing federal power and this is yet another infringement on states rights.

[DragonStryk72]

The idea that the Framers intended for same-sex marriages to be the law of the land, is one of the weirder examples of wishful thinking the left-fanatics come up with.

I'm pretty sure that the reason the Framers never mentioned it in the Constitution, is because they were absolutely sure that, even with the incredible range of twisted and warped things they knew governments could come up with, they never imagined in their wildest dreams that any state govt would approve that.

Judges who disagree with that, I disagree with.

Actually, they intended to never bring it up in the first place, because people's private lives are just that. The government was never supposed to have any say over who could or not get married. That was between the couple, the church and whatever god they believed in.