Author Topic: Are federal judges ruling on cases not within their power?  (Read 492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim Nunziato

Are federal judges ruling on cases not within their power?
« on: February 27, 2014, 09:16:05 AM »
  AUSTIN, Texas (AP)  — A federal judge declared a same-sex marriage ban in deeply conservative Texas unconstitutional Wednesday, the latest in a series of victories for gay rights activists who are challenging bans in dozens of states around the U.S.

Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday after two gay couples challenged a
Texas constitutional amendment and a longstanding law.



Why is this case in federal court? Have not the people of Texas (as well as those in many other states, including North Carolina) amended their STATE CONSTITUTION to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman? Is there not also a state law in Texas that defines the same?

If anyone, anywhere, in any state of our nation wishes to get married, I have never seen a problem, unless there was an age or kinship issue, and I have never heard anyone argue about those restrictions. Civil unions have been allowed for years, and it is generally accepted that whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody else's business. Any two people who live together, whether married or not, can take out insurance policies naming each other as beneficiaries, and each can will their estates to the other.  How many employers now provide benefits to "significant others"?

If two un-married people wish to live together, regardless of their gender, are they in any way forbidden to love each other, based solely upon their gender?  So, what then, is the issue?

Continuing on with the good judge's decision:
"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote. "These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."

I disagree with the good judge. These Texas laws do NOT deny ANYONE access to the institution of marriage. They are perfectly free to marry anyone they like, no differently than anyone else in the state. As I see it, the problem is that they want to REDEFINE the institution of "marriage" to suit themselves. And, if one continues to read further, "love" has nothing to do with it.

The Supreme Court, in its decision last June, declined to rule on the merits of a voter-approved California law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The effect of the decision was to allow same-sex unions to resume in California, but the high court said nothing about the right to marry. It did order the federal government to recognize valid same-sex marriages by striking down the part of the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act that denied same-sex married couples the federal benefits and rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Wait, I think I see the focal point: "...denied same-sex married couples the federal benefits and rights..." So, THAT in a nutshell, is what it's all about; "benefits and rights," not "love."

In our country, our Constitution is our supreme ruling document. The tenth amendment, in fact, reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As many times as I have searched, I have never found the word "marriage" in our Constitution, not even one time. So if no "power" of marriage is delegated to the United States by the Constitution, should not "marriage" and anything to do with it be reserved to the States respectively, or the people?  Have not the PEOPLE of many of the States amended their own State Constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?  Does the will of "We The People" mean anything in today's United States?

What do you think?

 
 
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  Thomas Jefferson

If Hillary was the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question!