Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Marriage in the Constitution?

Fair disclosure: I don't see a "shocker" in Patricia Evans' news story, below. I don't see a victory for the pursuit of happiness, either; equal rights to the pursuit of happiness would give equal rights to choose one's own heir or guardian to those who are (happily or unhappily) unmarried at the time when the choice has to be made...which includes the half of those who have been married who didn't die first. Neither do I see society becoming more concerned about the dear little emotional feelings of the handful of same-sex couples who want to have wedding parties (who rarely miss a chance to throw a party, whatever anyone else thinks, in any case). What I see is a cave-in to terrorist tactics--not the "But Adam and Steve throw great parties" sort of thing that's being reported in the media (although lots of well-meaning young people are jumping on that bandwagon), but "We don't want any AIDS blood thrown in our faces." I also see an attack on me, personally, as a widow who's found only one other man I'm remotely interested in dating, and he's older than I am, but nobody cares about middle-aged women anyway riiight?

I'm not pleased. But I'd advise Christians not to waste time and energy on this one until you're ready to stop twisting your knickers about other people's personal affairs (an unwinnable war) and actually spare a thought for the well-being of older Christians.

Anyway...from Patricia Evans:

"

Liberal Judge Strikes Down VA Marriage Law / Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution


"This is another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of Virginia did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision. This case also leaves a particular stench because of the unconscionable decision of Attorney General Mark Herring to not only abandon his sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, but to actually join the case against the very people he is duty-bound to represent." - Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage

Judge Arenda Wright Allen wrote a 41-page opinion here:  Bostic Et Al v. Rainey Et Al

"In her ruling, she claimed the Constitution declares that "all men are created equal," which is, instead, the first line of the Declaration of Independence.  Apparently she knows the Constitution about as well as the "Constitutional law professor” who appointed her."  - Vern Shotwell

Shocker: Liberal judge strikes down VA marriage law

http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topic/show?id=3355873%3ATopic%3A2779155&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
 A federal judge has struck down Virginia’s law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
 This law is not simply a law.  It is a constitutional amendment approved by the voters. 
 This comes after Virginia’s liberal Attorney General refused to do his job and defend the law in court.
 From Politico:
A federal judge ruled Thursday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage," Judge Arenda Wright Allen wrote in a 41-page opinion (posted here).
Ruling on a lawsuit brought by a gay couple who lives in Norfolk, Allen said the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage could not be justified even under the most lax constitutional test for state actions: whether it had a "rational" connection to a legitimate state purpose. Her ruling will not immediately make marriage licenses available to same-sex couples in Virginia because she ordered that her decision be stayed pending an expected appeal.
"The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family," the judge wrote.
 Guess who appointed Judge Allen?
 Obama.

The case, if it can be appealed must be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The problem is that appellate courts have to rule based on the record from the trial court.  The record is the transcript of witnesses’ testimony and other evidence the trial judge heard.
With Virginia’s Attorney General refusing to defend the case, the case might not even be appealed and even if it is, the record may be very limited.

Once again, we see an imperious federal judiciary overruling the voters of a state to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable.
And with the striking down of this law, can the liberal state apparatus be far behind?  That liberal state apparatus is the one that will force you to support homosexual marriage whether or not it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

From Breitbart,

"Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Confuses Declaration of Independence with Constitution"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/VA-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling-Confuses-Declaration-Of-Independence-With-Constitution#comment-1244312773
                              
The Virginia decision follows a declaration from Attorney General Eric Holder that the federal government will begin to expand same-sex marriage rights from the top down by recognizing marriages between same-sex couples on a federal level that invalidates the ability of states that ban such rights.                                                                                                                                                              

While the emphasis certainly will stay with the legal repercussions of such a ruling, one wonders how many legislative clerks and assorted editors such a federal opinion goes through where such a gaping error related to the most powerful legal document in the country can slip through. Surely no elected official would be spared from late night talk show monologues had they made the same mistake.


--
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."  - Thomas Jefferson "