“Judge to Ohio: Recognize out-of-state gay marriage”
Federalism is dead. Sure, it’s there in the Constitution, but since marriage (and just about every other “noble cause”) has been re-defined as a civil right, the entirety of the 10th amendment is now effectively and functionally moot. Washington Examiner:
A federal judge has ordered Ohio authorities to recognize the marriages of gay couples performed in other states.
Judge Timothy Black’s ruling on Monday criticized the state’s “ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Allow me to interject and add a partial list of other arbitrary discrimination involved with marriage laws: age of consent; number of partners; blood relationship; species of partner; etc. All ongoing. All discriminatory. None unconstitutional. Until now, when the door is opened to turning the institution of marriage, which doesn’t prevent coupling or cohabitation or prohibit relationships, into a civil right.
Judges like this, who play philosopher king rather than stick to the authority granted them under the Constitution, should be summarily recalled. Period. End of story.
[Black] says the state’s marriage recognition bans are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Black’s order doesn’t force Ohio to allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.
The state plans to appeal Black’s ruling, arguing that Ohio has a sovereign right to ban gay marriage, which voters did overwhelmingly in 2004.
Black delayed deciding whether to stay his ruling pending appeal until attorneys on both sides present their arguments on the issue by the end of Tuesday.
The left has learned how to form shop for judges as part of its overarching strategy to make government the agent of “progress” — often, with a single American citizen on the bench determining if the will of the rest of the plebes, who elect state representatives who in turn represent their wishes, is worthy of consideration. Activist judges, using the Living Constitution strategy that has robbed the 14th Amendment, eg, of its original intent, are now free to bastardize that intent, rewrite the amendment, and overrule the will of the individual citizen in individual states. We’ve seen this with proposition 8 in California. And we’re seeing it again here.
When New Yorkers passed their same-sex marriage laws, I disagreed with their decision but was supportive of the measure: they went via the ballot box and won in the state. Therefore, those who wish to marry a partner of the same sex in New York are legally free to do so. But in states where such laws haven’t been passed, the right of the state to refuse recognition of another state’s electorate is precisely an attack on federalism of the kind those who warned against same sex marriage laws foresaw.
This is not about same sex unions per se. It is about creating a new paradigm of “civil rights” that flow from “social justice” measures and give agents of the government a template over which to map their overreach.
And the left judicial activists are an integral part of the “fundamental transformation” we hear so much about.
Yet, here’s the thing: what if Ohio tells the court to go fuck itself, that — regardless of what any appeals court, or ultimately the Supreme Court, rules, they are not required to surrender their own state sovereignty and be compelled to follow the laws of other states, whose citizens don’t reflect the same values or policy wishes of the autonomous state being forced to follow out-of-state law?
That is, what if they just say no?
Is Obama prepared to send National Guard troops into, say, Little Rock, and force some pastry shop to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple? And how is this anything but tyranny and a “benevolent” police state?
Answer: it isn’t. But pointing it out? Makes you a Visigoth. Or, you know, like Obama himself 2-years ago: a homophobic HATER.