Registered: 1078687818 Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote #1
A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Full article here Why did I bring this case up? It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all. With a federal court ruling on marriage, an issue federal legislators claim is a state issue, it has now officially ended the debate regarding if marriage is solely a state issue and that is is in fact partially a federal issue. Otherwise, the federal courts would not have had subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case. __________________ IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers
"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Registered: 1117129928 Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote #2
Good Point Brian either way this may be good for us. __________________ What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.