FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LEXINGTON, KY--Family Foundation senior policy analyst Martin Cothran will participate in a discussion with the federal judge whose two decisions striking down Kentucky's Marriage Protection Amendment were reversed last week by the 6th Circuit Appeals Court.
The program featuring Cothran and Federal Justice John G. Heyburn will be a part of the Woman Lawyer's Association of Louisville Annual Luncheon from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Ice House at 226 East Washington Street in Louisville.
###
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know where DC got the authority to regulate marriage:
ReplyDelete"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." James Madison
As my favorite poli-sci professor once told the class...odds are that one secession movement and one civil war won't be the final chapter in future history books.
ReplyDeleteOld Rebel,
ReplyDelete"I'd like to know where DC got the authority to regulate marriage"
The 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.
It has been a long time since I worked in the Federal Courts , but since when was it appropriate or ethical for a sitting judge to publicly debate issues that have or could come before him in court? Sounds like evidence of prejudice to me.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteSo - the central government is all-powerful? It can claim any power over us as long as it justifies that power with the intent of imposing equality. Nice.
Pol Pot could've used a bright young man like you.
MegaLass,
ReplyDeleteThe issue has already been before Judge Heyburn, and he has already ruled.
OldRebel,
ReplyDeleteLOL. Remember, you are the one advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat in which a simple majority has the absolute power to strip any citizen of all of their constitutional rights. I'm advocating for government restrained from violating people's rights by the Constitution.
KyCobb
ReplyDeleteHow do we know that "equal protection" applies to same-sex marriage?
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteSo the drafters of the 14th amendment intended to grant homosexuals the right to marry? Got it.
A central government that has the power to nullify its citizens' votes is a tyranny. It's no coincidence that the same government that ignores limits to its power is also waging endless war, spying on its subjects, and claiming the power to indefinitely detain dissidents.
All in the name of promoting democracy.
Martin, Because the 14 Amendment doesn't have any exemptions from equal protection of the laws. It doesn't say "except marriage laws."
ReplyDeleteOld Rebel, I remember when conservatives would say the US is a republic, not a democracy, because they knew a pure democracy is despotic. If a simple majority can strip the constitutional rights from any citizen, then the Constitution is meaningless. Judicial review protects rights you care about as well, such as gun rights. Do you want 51% of the voters to have the power to take your guns?
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteDo you get homesick when you look up at the night sky?
The right to self-defense is backed by centuries of practice. The "right" of homosexuals to play house was dreamed up out of thin air by the Cultural Marxists.
Funny how all this judicial review doesn't apply to illegal citizen surveillance, isn't it?
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteThe equal protection applies to all people and all relationships without distinction?
Martin, tests have been created by the courts to determine if a law violates equal protection, which you know.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteBut you said the 14th Amendment "doesn't have any exemptions from equal protection of the laws."
Martin,
ReplyDeleteCorrect, meaning that a law is not exempt from the requirement of equal protection just because its a marriage law. Whether or not the law in question violates equal protection is determined based on the application of the appropriate judicial test, whether its rational basis or its subject to heightened scrutiny.
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteHere come the polygamists! And many other proponents of vibrancy.
Except being married to 2 or 3 people isn't equal to being married to 1, so banning polygamy doesn't violate equal protection.
ReplyDeleteOr, KyCobb, polygamists could argue that their equality is being multiply denied.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteGet real. You know the polygamists and pedophiles will argue for "equal treatment" rather than "special privilege."
Old Rebel,
ReplyDeleteGet real. You know the polygamists and pedophiles will argue for "equal treatment" rather than "special privilege."
They can argue anything they want. Such a claim has no merit.
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteGive me the 14th Amendment criterion that applies to same-sex marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.
Martin, Equal protection of the laws. Polygamists want extra, not equal, rights, so equal protection doesn't apply.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteThat's nonsense. If the homosexuals can change the definition of marriage in the name of equality, the polygamists can, too.
Actually, they're one step ahead of you:
Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings
Old Rebel,
ReplyDeleteI see that you didn't read the article you linked to since it actually undermines your argument:
"The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized."
Even the polygamists recognize your argument that ssm will lead to legalized plural marriage is bogus.
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteThere were a number of homosexuals who opposed legalization of same-sex "marriage" for similar reasons. But look which side triumphed.
From the article:
“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”
No matter how badly you want it to be true, two or three marriage licenses aren't equal to one.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteOne license. Three names.
Three names isn't equal to two, either.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteAnd two men or two women can't be do what a man and a woman can do.
Old Rebel,
ReplyDeleteSure they can. They can have children the same way millions of opposite sex couples do, via adoption or surrogacy, which are both millenia old practices and even biblical. In the US the fertility of the couple has never been a prerequisite to marriage, so to suddenly use that as an excuse to support ssm bans is nothing but a rationalization of bigotry. BTW, the National Organization of Marriage is going bankrupt, because few people want to throw their money away on a lost cause.
KyCobb,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you miss the point: Our handlers in DC have changed the definition of marriage. So there is nothing to stop the pedophiles and polygamists from wanting the same.
Old Rebel,
ReplyDeleteThey can want anything they like; it doesn't mean they are going to get it.