A Pair Of Stories From The Courts
(UPDATED and bumped to the top.)
First, New York's highest court handed down a ruling that has a few people howling.
New York's highest court ruled this morning that there is no right to same-sex marriage under current state law. In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals asserted that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples in the state and that the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians are not violated because of that, the Associated Press reports.
However, the judges acknowledged the possibility that New York's legislature could change state law to allow marriage equality. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Judge Robert Smith wrote for the majority, according to the AP.
Four cases involving 44 same-sex couples from around the state were combined into one omnibus case for the court to rule on. In three of those cases, lower courts had rejected a right to same-sex marriage, but a New York City court had ruled in favor of it.
And, of course, there is a quote from a lesbian woman complaining that she deserves the smae rights as her neighbors. I see no rights that she has lost. There is no "Right to Marry" in the Constitution. Furthermore, the court did not state that gay people cannot be married. They just cannot be married to another person of the same sex. The Left's fascination with this particular issue is equally aggravating and appalling. To think that these people, after 230 years of Constitutional rule, have decided that there is something within the Constitution that would allow for such an act clearly irritates me to no end. NEVER before has any state or legislature passed a law that allows for same-sex marriage. All such precedents have been set by the courts, and not the elected legislatures or the people. And that was precisely the reason why the Protection of Marriage Amendment was reintroduced in Congress. Thomas dislikes having to add an amendment to the Constitution to protect what s clearly a common sense issue. However, I have pointed out to him that the POMA had within it language that would have taken the power away from judges (power illegally usurped by the courts), and reserved it for the people.
And our second court story comes from Texas where a judge there has ruled that Tom DeLay will stay on the ballot in Texas:
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks heard testimony last week in a daylong trial to determine whether the Republicans should be able to move ahead.
DeLay, the former House majority leader who resigned from office June 9, testified that he lives and votes in Virginia and that he has a Virginia driver's license.
But lawyers for Texas Democrats pointed out DeLay still owns a Houston-area home, where his wife Christine lives and where DeLay spends time. The Democrats also argued that it couldn't be shown conclusively whether DeLay would be an "inhabitant" of Texas on Election Day on Nov. 7.
Sparks indicated at trial that he expected an appeal.
Democrats want to keep DeLay and his legal troubles on the minds of voters and hope to win his former seat in the 22nd congressional district, where Democrat Nick Lampson is running.
"Now he's on the ballot, now he's off the ballot," said Lampson spokesman Mike Malaise. "We're just campaigning as if we have an opponent."
DeLay, under indictment on Texas campaign-finance charges, won the Republican primary for his district in March but announced about a month later that he was resigning from Congress and moving to Virginia.
DeLay is awaiting trial on money laundering and conspiracy charges connected to the financing of Texas legislative campaigns in 2002 with alleged illegal corporate money. DeLay also has come under suspicion over his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Republican leaders insist DeLay did not "withdraw" from the election in Texas, which could mean that he couldn't be replaced. They say Texas Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser declared him "ineligible" because of his move to Alexandria, Va., allowing the party to choose a new nominee.
Democrats contend that GOP officials worked for months to manipulate the election system to ensure that they could hand-pick a new nominee after DeLay's primary. Republicans claim Democrats are trying to "steal" the congressional seat.
The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of pulling a Lautenberg in Texas. (Frank Lautenberg replaced Robert Torricelli after the primary in New Jersey. It was appealed to the state Supreme Court, and the court ruled the replacement was proper despite the fact it clearly violated the state's election laws.) The Republicans are doing nothing of the sort. They want Tom DeLay's name removed from the ballot because he will not run.
In the famous words of General Sherman: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." And Tom DeLay means that, unless he is nominated or elected from Virginia. The Texas Republicans understand that, which is why they have been trying to clear the way while the Democrats continue to play games in an effort to literally steal the seat. If the Republican nominee is DeLay only, then they run virtually unopposed.
The easiest way around this, of course, is to pull a Joe Lieberman (provided that there is time) and find a solid Republican to run as an independent. The court will take too long in hearing an appeal, and should the courts rule that he is to be taken off of the ballot, the Democrats will appeal, again. This is how far the Democrats have fallen.
They cannot get their agenda passed through normal means because: A) No one will elect them in a solid majority, and B)Too many people know that their agenda is the wrong one for the country. So, they have resorted to the "rule of law" via judicial fiat. The judges rule, and precedent is held as binding law. And when the courts do not rule their way, they pull out their bag of dirty tricks, like this one, and go to town.
This time, though, the Democrats may have bitten off more than they can chew.
Marcie
UPDATE: 12:26 p.m. Arizona Time
Yahoo News is reporting that Georgia has joined New York in banning same-sex marriage:
In Georgia, where three-quarters of voters approved a ban on gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004, the top court reinstated the ban Thursday, ruling unanimously that it did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language was misleading, asking voters to decide on same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.
The twin rulings, which came less than two hours apart, become part of the nationwide debate that has continued to evolve since a Massachusetts court ruling in late 2003 ushered in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco.
High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts.
Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
This is the thing about the Left, and I bring this up only because there are a number of activists cited in this story. The Left has forgotten that in the United States, majority rules. This is not "mob rule" as the Left prefers to call it. It is democracy in action. They are advocating for a minority of people that truly do not understand the rights they possess. As I stated above, no one is saying a gay person cannot be married. They just cannot be married to a person of the same sex. Same sex marriage is what has been deemed illegal by forty-five states around the nation. That constitutes a majority. If the Left wishes to change this, then work through the system, as has been outlined for 230 years, and change the laws. Do not rely on the courts to do so. Legislating, the creation of laws, is well outside their purview, and I take their interference in such areas as outside the constrictions of "good Behaviour" enumerated under Article III of the Constitution.
Marcie
(UPDATED and bumped to the top.)
First, New York's highest court handed down a ruling that has a few people howling.
New York's highest court ruled this morning that there is no right to same-sex marriage under current state law. In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals asserted that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples in the state and that the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians are not violated because of that, the Associated Press reports.
However, the judges acknowledged the possibility that New York's legislature could change state law to allow marriage equality. "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives," Judge Robert Smith wrote for the majority, according to the AP.
Four cases involving 44 same-sex couples from around the state were combined into one omnibus case for the court to rule on. In three of those cases, lower courts had rejected a right to same-sex marriage, but a New York City court had ruled in favor of it.
And, of course, there is a quote from a lesbian woman complaining that she deserves the smae rights as her neighbors. I see no rights that she has lost. There is no "Right to Marry" in the Constitution. Furthermore, the court did not state that gay people cannot be married. They just cannot be married to another person of the same sex. The Left's fascination with this particular issue is equally aggravating and appalling. To think that these people, after 230 years of Constitutional rule, have decided that there is something within the Constitution that would allow for such an act clearly irritates me to no end. NEVER before has any state or legislature passed a law that allows for same-sex marriage. All such precedents have been set by the courts, and not the elected legislatures or the people. And that was precisely the reason why the Protection of Marriage Amendment was reintroduced in Congress. Thomas dislikes having to add an amendment to the Constitution to protect what s clearly a common sense issue. However, I have pointed out to him that the POMA had within it language that would have taken the power away from judges (power illegally usurped by the courts), and reserved it for the people.
And our second court story comes from Texas where a judge there has ruled that Tom DeLay will stay on the ballot in Texas:
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks heard testimony last week in a daylong trial to determine whether the Republicans should be able to move ahead.
DeLay, the former House majority leader who resigned from office June 9, testified that he lives and votes in Virginia and that he has a Virginia driver's license.
But lawyers for Texas Democrats pointed out DeLay still owns a Houston-area home, where his wife Christine lives and where DeLay spends time. The Democrats also argued that it couldn't be shown conclusively whether DeLay would be an "inhabitant" of Texas on Election Day on Nov. 7.
Sparks indicated at trial that he expected an appeal.
Democrats want to keep DeLay and his legal troubles on the minds of voters and hope to win his former seat in the 22nd congressional district, where Democrat Nick Lampson is running.
"Now he's on the ballot, now he's off the ballot," said Lampson spokesman Mike Malaise. "We're just campaigning as if we have an opponent."
DeLay, under indictment on Texas campaign-finance charges, won the Republican primary for his district in March but announced about a month later that he was resigning from Congress and moving to Virginia.
DeLay is awaiting trial on money laundering and conspiracy charges connected to the financing of Texas legislative campaigns in 2002 with alleged illegal corporate money. DeLay also has come under suspicion over his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Republican leaders insist DeLay did not "withdraw" from the election in Texas, which could mean that he couldn't be replaced. They say Texas Republican Party chairwoman Tina Benkiser declared him "ineligible" because of his move to Alexandria, Va., allowing the party to choose a new nominee.
Democrats contend that GOP officials worked for months to manipulate the election system to ensure that they could hand-pick a new nominee after DeLay's primary. Republicans claim Democrats are trying to "steal" the congressional seat.
The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of pulling a Lautenberg in Texas. (Frank Lautenberg replaced Robert Torricelli after the primary in New Jersey. It was appealed to the state Supreme Court, and the court ruled the replacement was proper despite the fact it clearly violated the state's election laws.) The Republicans are doing nothing of the sort. They want Tom DeLay's name removed from the ballot because he will not run.
In the famous words of General Sherman: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." And Tom DeLay means that, unless he is nominated or elected from Virginia. The Texas Republicans understand that, which is why they have been trying to clear the way while the Democrats continue to play games in an effort to literally steal the seat. If the Republican nominee is DeLay only, then they run virtually unopposed.
The easiest way around this, of course, is to pull a Joe Lieberman (provided that there is time) and find a solid Republican to run as an independent. The court will take too long in hearing an appeal, and should the courts rule that he is to be taken off of the ballot, the Democrats will appeal, again. This is how far the Democrats have fallen.
They cannot get their agenda passed through normal means because: A) No one will elect them in a solid majority, and B)Too many people know that their agenda is the wrong one for the country. So, they have resorted to the "rule of law" via judicial fiat. The judges rule, and precedent is held as binding law. And when the courts do not rule their way, they pull out their bag of dirty tricks, like this one, and go to town.
This time, though, the Democrats may have bitten off more than they can chew.
Marcie
UPDATE: 12:26 p.m. Arizona Time
Yahoo News is reporting that Georgia has joined New York in banning same-sex marriage:
In Georgia, where three-quarters of voters approved a ban on gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004, the top court reinstated the ban Thursday, ruling unanimously that it did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Lawyers for the plaintiffs had argued that the ballot language was misleading, asking voters to decide on same-sex marriage and civil unions, separate issues about which many people had different opinions.
The twin rulings, which came less than two hours apart, become part of the nationwide debate that has continued to evolve since a Massachusetts court ruling in late 2003 ushered in a spate of gay marriage controversies from Boston to San Francisco.
High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts.
Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
This is the thing about the Left, and I bring this up only because there are a number of activists cited in this story. The Left has forgotten that in the United States, majority rules. This is not "mob rule" as the Left prefers to call it. It is democracy in action. They are advocating for a minority of people that truly do not understand the rights they possess. As I stated above, no one is saying a gay person cannot be married. They just cannot be married to a person of the same sex. Same sex marriage is what has been deemed illegal by forty-five states around the nation. That constitutes a majority. If the Left wishes to change this, then work through the system, as has been outlined for 230 years, and change the laws. Do not rely on the courts to do so. Legislating, the creation of laws, is well outside their purview, and I take their interference in such areas as outside the constrictions of "good Behaviour" enumerated under Article III of the Constitution.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home