It was statewide this time … there have been so many county level decisions that the Florida case has been difficult to follow:
“In the first decision on same-sex marriage with statewide impact, a federal judge ruled Thursday that Florida’s gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional, ordering the state to allow the marriage of same-sex couples and to recognize marriages performed elsewhere.
“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,” wrote U.S District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee. “Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held.” …”
The federal judge quoted MLK and cited the Loving decision:
“”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,” Hinkle wrote in his decision. “To paraphrase a civil rights leader from the age when interracial marriage was struck down, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
“The Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice,” he continued, and that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples has “no rational basis.” …
You have to admire Hinkle’s logic: the gay marriage ban is based on morality. Therefore, it has no “rational basis.”
Did Virginia’s decision apply to W.Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina or are our laws still in effect?
Gays. I don’t get why they have to be so silly. Look at that d-bag in sunglasses; WTF? Really. Why all the silliness. For people that “just wanna be accepted” they sure aren’t looking like their trying too hard.
I would gladly make a generous contribution to the LoS for nullification billboard campaign. Why don’t state legislatures and governors ignore these rulings? This ruling is not one based on legality but instead it’s a political ruling. The reason why Federal judges have gotten out of control is because the states never stood up to them. Why not make a stand now?
Why don’t state legislatures and governors ignore these rulings?
Politicians are interested in power, not in principle.
Gay men don’t want marriage and all the traditional commitments that come with it. They want wedding ceremonies and access to ‘spousal’ employer paid health benefits.
Back in my college days (very long time ago) the gay movement was all about attacking marriage. Marriage was a “tool if the patriarchy”, a form of oppression / slavery /etc. Now the same groups who railed against it now want to get married?
IMO opinion: The institution of marriage took a bigger hit with the advent of no-fault divorce coupled with endless alimony, and the denial of men access to their biological children.
I have a bit of a baby boom going on with my tenants. None are married. The men see no advantage to being so.
Divorce was the start of this mess, for sure.
The trouble is getting the rank-and-file conservatives to realize that America is the problem, when they’ve been eating red-white-and blue bomb pops since infancy.
After the collapse, sure, when hindsight is 20/20, but what about now?
This, and the over-the-top negrofication of everything in America is why I hope & prey for the coming collapse to come soon.
Once America is dead, something great has the opportunity to arise from the ashes.
His legal rationale is divining what will be thought of by people (many of whom have not yet been born) fifty years from now. We have a sitting Federal Judge determining law, not by precedent, but by what he envisions will happen in the future. We should stop calling him a Judge, and label him an Oracle. The federal judiciary is a complete farce.
The fact that he made such observations doesn’t mean that they were the basis for his decision.
They were the preamble of his 33 page opinion. Basically the first couple paragraphs.
judges aren’t supposed to invent and then keep secret their reasoning, if this is what he wrote down, thats the legal basis for what he did, which is absurd.
Nothing spells equality like the federal government forcing Gay Marriage on the States. I guess the 10th Amendment doesn’t matter unless it’s supportive of the liberal agenda.
Something our fellow Southern Christian Conservatives need to understand. Washington D.C. doesn’t represent or care about the South. They don’t care about our Heritage, Culture, Morals, Values, or anything else. Why should the South remain in a country that could care less about our people? Secede !
The 10th Amendment doesn’t mean that the majority can enforce any ignorant bias on others.
What the 10th Amendment states is that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government is reserved for the states or the people themselves. Would you like to point out a clause in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to define marriage?
I don’t understand why there hasn’t been one judge who has upheld a law. You can’t even rely on the “conservative” judges. I was just reading about the court hearing arguments on Wisconsin’s ban with a elderly Reagan appointee who “bristled” at the arguments made by the lawyers arguing for the law: he said they were based on hate like the laws against interracial marriage.
And I can’t stand those conservatives who have folded on this issue. Our local weekday afternoon talk show on WRVA (Richmond) is hosted by Jeff Katz (member of the tribe) and he and his predecessor there keep saying it’s no big deal and you have people calling in and saying that true conservatives support queer marriage because it’s a freedom issue.
Never trust a Respectable Conservative.
They have been doing this forever:
First oppose a leftist policy.
Lose the argument against that policy.
Become enforcers of that policy.
Sounds like his ruling is upholding the law to me.
‘You have to admire Hinkle’s logic: the gay marriage ban is based on morality. Therefore, it has no “rational basis.”’
Silly comment.
1) He said “moral disapproval”, not “morality” . The distinction? Consider the “moral disapproval” of those who thought (and some who still do) that blacks and whites should not kiss, marry, etc. Their moral disapproval doesn’t make the behavior amoral.
2) He didn’t use the word “therefore”, as far as I know.
The significance? The “therefore” phrasing suggests that the judge stated that the SOLE consideration that objection is based on morality is sufficient to invalidate such objections.
The judge did not make such a claim (as far as I know).
3) Had he done so, he would be correct. It’s unethical to legislate morality.
1) The ruling was political but it is “rational and reasonable” to you because you agree with the outcome. When the states ratified the Constitution and Amendments, most if not all states had anti sodomy laws on their books. Therefore, they were not for gay anything let alone “marriage.” The states did not give the Federal government the authority to impose gay marriage onto them. The Federal government (like always) usurps power for itself.
2) The Federal government would start a “war” of sorts. However, a disproportionate number of its soldiers are Southerners. I would love to see the imagery of Federal soldiers pointing their guns at Southerners. They would have made 1 million Southern Nationalists overnight.
3) The states would lose only if they didn’t hold their ground. The Federal government can’t impose gay marriage onto them unless they give in. And if the US were to fall apart, that would be a positive thing.
Gays have the freedom to do what they want behind closed doors. But. Why do u have to celebrate it with your parades and protests. We get it men. You like other mens bulges in their pants. Wonderful… by that same logic should I march and protest cuse I like girls with big tits. Just keep it to yourself. We have nore important shit to worry about like black people