Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[jbombelli]

It appears federalism is okay. Sometimes. States' rights are okay. Sometimes. As long as the wind is blowing your direction it's all good, right?

 

[indiucky]

It appears federalism is okay. Sometimes. States' rights are okay. Sometimes. As long as the wind is blowing your direction it's all good, right?

C'mon....Libertarians are not that bad...They actually make some valid points sometimes....Other political parties can be just as inconsistent as they are.....

 

[cobber]

It appears federalism is okay. Sometimes. States' rights are okay. Sometimes. As long as the wind is blowing your direction it's all good, right?

Do you understand the point? Ultra vires acts by government are never okay. Federal issues are federal, and ditto on State issues.

We could just roll up State governments and let the feds take over the whole shebang. Somehow I think we would soon come to regret it.


In the meantime, we might as well shred the 10th Amendment. And once that's done, start on the next 9 in the BoR.

 

[Redhorse]

C'mon....Libertarians are not that bad...They actually make some valid points sometimes....Other political parties can be just as inconsistent as they are.....

Libertarians are terrible, ask any extreme right or left winger or anyone who complains about democrats and republicans at the same time.

 

[jbombelli]

So some rights are federal and some aren't? That seems to be the argument to me.

I will always support the feds telling the states they can't infringe on the rights of the people. That is one of the few things they actually SHOULD do. It's a shame so many of you only support that when it's a right you LIKE.

 

[lj98]

So some rights are federal and some aren't? That seems to be the argument to me.

I will always support the feds telling the states they can't infringe on the rights of the people. That is one of the few things they actually SHOULD do. It's a shame so many of you only support that when it's a right you LIKE.

This times infinity...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Because all the best solutions come from Washington...

 

[lj98]

Because each state is always looking out for the best interests/rights of its entire population...

 

[Liberty Sanders]

This times infinity...

Agreed...it is the job of the Federal government to prevent the states from violating the rights of citizens.

​Now if there was just a way to keep the FEDS from doing it...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Because each state is always looking out for the best interests/rights of its entire population...

At least when one state goes off the deep end, theoretically I could move to a more suitable place. When your federal overlords homogenize the country, then where will you go if you don't like the results?

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like we can add Kentucky to the party, too. I liked their judges take on it, too.

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote, invalidating Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Heyburn rejected the only justification offered by lawyers for Beshear — that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability."These arguments are not those of serious people," he said.
Heyburn held that the ban on gay marriage within Kentucky violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law and that there is "no conceivable legitimate purpose for it."

Federal judge in Louisville rules gays have right to marry in Kentucky

 

[cobber]

So some rights are federal and some aren't? That seems to be the argument to me.

I will always support the feds telling the states they can't infringe on the rights of the people. That is one of the few things they actually SHOULD do. It's a shame so many of you only support that when it's a right you LIKE.

The feds don't belong in State issues. I give up.

Looks like we can add Kentucky to the party, too. I liked "their" judges take on it, too.

Federal judge in Louisville rules gays have right to marry in Kentucky

FIFY. Again, it's not a Kentucky judge but a federal judge. Welcome to the new order, and remember you got what you asked for.

As for the triumphalism about gay marriage, BFD. Wake me when some serious liberty happens.

Like a federal judge declares the IRS unconstitutional.

Or enjoins the president from his reign of EOs.

 

[MisterChester]

Ah, but if a federal judge ruled that carry licenses infringe on the right of the people to bear arms there would be a party up in here. The "states rights" argument is quickly forgotten and swept under the rug, only to be brought out later.

 

[mrjarrell]

Ah, but if a federal judge ruled that carry licenses infringe on the right of the people to bear arms there would be a party up in here. The "states rights" argument is quickly forgotten and swept under the rug, only to be brought out later.

Yep. We wouldn't hear a peep from the so called "federalists" on it, other than their triumphant crowing. This is a win for liberty and equality. In Indiana and Kentucky.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ah, but if a federal judge ruled that carry licenses infringe on the right of the people to bear arms there would be a party up in here. The "states rights" argument is quickly forgotten and swept under the rug, only to be brought out later.

One is specifically a Constitutionally protected right. The other is a subject left to the states and the people to be governed as they see fit. There is a difference.

 

[mrjarrell]

Marriage is a Right.

[h=2]AMENDMENT IX[/h]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And it comes before the 10th, in order of importance.

 

[mrjarrell]

This one is also important. It's how we're winning the war on guns.

[h=2]AMENDMENT XIV[/h][h=2]SECTION 1.[/h]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Marriage is a Right.


And it comes before the 10th, in order of importance.

And by that cockamaime logic the first comes before all of those.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

.

And further by that logic, the first clause is the most important one of them all. That part about prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not mean you get to go whatever church you want to or can wear a Star of David around your neck.

 

[mrjarrell]

The clauses are irrelevant, for the most part. Marriage is a Right under the 9th Amendment. Why do you hate peoples Rights so much? The Rights of the individual come before the powers of the state, as it should be. Unless you think the state should be of greater importance? That would explain a few things.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The clauses are irrelevant, for the most part. Marriage is a Right under the 9th Amendment. Why do you hate peoples Rights so much? The Rights of the individual come before the powers of the state, as it should be. Unless you think the state should be of greater importance? That would explain a few things.

Your preference for the federal government's riding roughshod over the will of the people and especially religious people is well noted.