• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

How can Federal judge require state to violate state constitution?

3skulls said:
The person I envision wanting to marry a goat... Not all parties would be happy. That poor goat :(
Click to expand...
Might want to talk to PETA about the goat thing. They've been trying to get the equivalent of human rights applied to various critters for years, including legal representation.:rolleyes:
 
Ok you jokers...back to topic. My point was that legal lines are drawn all the time and KY had made it clear, that in their state, marriage was between a man and a woman. Does a federal judge have any right whatsoever to unilaterally change that? If that's the case why even have state Constitutions? I think the feds would love to just get rid of the state lines, state governments and rule with an iron hand from DC. This time it's gay marriage. Next time it might be guns.
 
John A. said:
Don't like the laws, nothing making you stay there.
Click to expand...

The ones who will have us change are a disease that has spread and has been allowed to spread because people have been running from them for far too long.
I will die here hopefully of old age, but if it in defense of what I love then so be it.
I am of the belief that it is high time people quit tucking tail and moving to some place they think is better and then doing it again and again when they get invaded, and they will.
No place is immune from what we face as Americans.
Words on paper that are attempts at control through unconstitutional means can and will be ignored because we are still free and will die free.
Moving to all these little corners that people believe are strongholds of freedom is delusional and just what our enemy wants us to do.
After time all the likeminded people will be in one or two places and will have in essence put all the eggs in one basket. An easy target for the ones that want us to become extinct…..retreat is a precursor to defeat, whether it be a battle or a war retreat is sometimes wise for preservation and to live to fight another day but in this war of words will only encourage our opponents to continue their pursuit….I am putting them on my ignore list and if enough people do the same they will be the ones who will move off.
Through all our efforts , if things don’t go the way we know is right it will come down to “make me”…..In my mind they are trying to take rights and freedom ,we are trying to preserve what we have…. nothing more, nothing less. Just my opinion and belief.
 
I happen to agree with you Oli.

I have no intention of leaving this place. It's my home. And I'll stand tall in doing what I feel is right and make no apologies for it to anyone.

Sometimes that's just what being a man is all about. ;)
 
What recourse is there? States pick and choose what fed laws they will or will not enforce. What real weight does this ruling carry and how can they force the state to comply?
 
First off, it is the job of the Governor and the Commonwealth attorney to uphold the state constitution and laws first and foremost.

If they do not, I am not really sure where it would go from there.

It would be very wise of the Governor and Commonwealth Attorney to vigorously defend the state constitution and wishes of the majority of those within their state that elected them to do just that.
 
I agree they should fight it. The people of the state have obviously spoken.

I don't know what it really means in the interum.
 
I hope your leaders fight for your Constitution John. PA elected some liberal woman as Attorney General. One of the first things she did was say she didn't believe in the PA marriage law and couldn't defend it in court. Last week we had Eric "pick and choose the laws you will enforce" Holder give a speech where he told the states A.G.'s that they don't have to enforce or fight for the marriage laws in their states. He even said something to the effect of not enforcing laws they don't like should be a special case ie. it's ok but don't do it to much. I wonder how Eric would like an AG that didn't believe in enforcing machine gun laws? I guess this is where it's not about gay marriage to me. It's about what kind of country we have become and I don't like it.

Great post Oli, you got me all pumped up. To me you are the M.O. Patrick Henry.
 
I'm pretty sure that the Commonwealth Attorney has issued a statement that they are going to review the judges determination, and expect to make a decision later next month according to the local news tonight.
 
Just heard on the radio that everything is on a 3 week hold then the state has to comply.
I do think that its bullshit that they can bully the state like that and think they can get away with it. With that said I have to also say the following.

I know this isn't the issue that's before us here but more of what the issue is about.

When I was a kid, 2014 seemed so far into the future. I can't believe humans are still voting on if other humans should have the same rights as them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top