tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post6428787554857089732..comments2024-03-25T13:42:25.771-05:00Comments on Advance Indiana™: 7th Circuit Grants Stay Of Judge Young's Ruling, Halting Issuance Of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses In IndianaGary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-49937121959346465142014-07-01T15:08:21.716-05:002014-07-01T15:08:21.716-05:00Today a federal judge has struck down Kentucky'...Today a federal judge has struck down Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that gay couples have the right to marry in the Bluegrass State.<br /><br />"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District court Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote in the ruling, which concluded that the state's ban violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.<br /><br />The judge stayed the ruling pending an appeal in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court, meaning same-sex weddings are not yet allowed in the state. However, Heyburn criticized Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) for arguing that the ban preserves the state's birth rate and therefore contributes to Kentucky's economic stability.<br /><br />"These arguments are not those of serious people," Heyburn wrote.<br /><br />Beshear plans to appeal Tuesday's ruling.<br /><br />Earlier this year, Heyburn ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where the weddings are legal. That decision is also temporarily on hold pending legal challenges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-56806662429171778942014-06-30T08:18:02.642-05:002014-06-30T08:18:02.642-05:00"Where it was clearly estaished that state..."Where it was clearly estaished that state's rights do not trump individual rights."<br /><br />Walk away, Cox. Now you're hiding behind the Civil War / War of Northern Aggression as proof that gay marriage is in the 14th Amendment?<br /><br />The War of Northern Aggression had nothing, at all, to do with individual rights. I know you're soft on history, so here's what you won't learn from Ken Burns: the WNA proved that whoever has the most guns wins and that the U.S. Government will kill people to have greater power than the states. <br /><br />Nothing in those facts is proof that gay marriage is in the 14th or that the 14th guarantees every conceivable individual right to the citizens of the United States.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-17532742000712808572014-06-29T13:31:43.873-05:002014-06-29T13:31:43.873-05:00Same sex sharia notwithstanding; no common languag...Same sex sharia notwithstanding; no common language- no law. Pete Boggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12948800585492289789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-28844658296107382132014-06-29T10:50:21.015-05:002014-06-29T10:50:21.015-05:00Wasn't it Antonin Scalia who, when queried abo...Wasn't it Antonin Scalia who, when queried about the gay marriage issue, adked, "Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say gays are not allowed to marry?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-77829145641812382102014-06-29T06:23:48.137-05:002014-06-29T06:23:48.137-05:00The highest court to hear these issues so far is ...The highest court to hear these issues so far is the tenth circuit court of appeals which upheld a Utah judge’s decision striking down the State’s ban. This appeals court set a precedent by finding that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage — such as Utah’s Amendment 3 — violate the constitutional rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates, this is the law of the land in the tenth circuit. Indiana’s 7th Circuit may reach the same conclusion, or it may split from the tenth. It can still go either way. But the language from the Court’s opinion reflects consensus from some 14 federal cases in a row to reach similar result. “We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws,” the majority wrote in its decision, posted on the court's website. “A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. A similar case in Oklahoma is pending before the 10th circuit. And a Virginia case that struck down that state’s ban has been argued on appeal and a decision is pending. Its anyone’s guess what the 7th circuit will do with Indiana’s decision. Wait and see. But the strong trend is to find both equal protection and due process arguments in favor of gay marriage. Unless we quickly see a split between the circuits, this will be the law of the land. There was a strong dissent from Judge Kelly in the 10th circuit opinion who warned the court was overstepping it authority, but that is the kind of sovereign state argument that few judges believe trumps the 14th amendment. The smart money is still betting on gay marriage nationally. Greg Zoeller had a hard time even getting his stay. He has very few moves left.retirednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-39693158260786182052014-06-28T23:50:19.916-05:002014-06-28T23:50:19.916-05:00I won't presume to speak for Gary, but I suspe...I won't presume to speak for Gary, but I suspect he allows anonymous posts so he can continue to expose corruption in state and local government, giving some measure of protection to government workers exposing that corruption. You're just making sanctimonious statements that went out of style with the Civil War. Where it was clearly estaished that state's rights do not trump individual rights. Perhaps you missed that.<br />And please, promote that story of me all you want. Any publicity is good publicity. That's one reason I put my name by my statements and take the slings and arrows for them, however outrageous. The bigger reason is, of course, honesty. You should look into it sometime.Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-74549662012129047022014-06-28T22:03:32.336-05:002014-06-28T22:03:32.336-05:00Cox at 8:52:
Only because vapid courts side with ...Cox at 8:52:<br /><br />Only because vapid courts side with you.<br /><br />In a real forum of logical exchange, you lost, long ago. <br /><br />You brought up the 14th Amendment as trumping the 10th Amendment on gay marriage. You were asked to defend your claim, to show where gay marriage is in the 14th. You were asked to show where gay marriage was ever considered in the deliberation and ratification of the 14th. <br /><br />You didn't answer, because you can't answer. Your position is groundless and wholly contrived. In response to being cornered so quickly, you lobbed a series of sophomoric taunts and ran away from the discussion.<br /><br />This passes for "lawyering?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-6631641177729566642014-06-28T21:23:36.820-05:002014-06-28T21:23:36.820-05:00Anonymous 9:01,
I just took the "anonymous&q...Anonymous 9:01,<br /><br />I just took the "anonymous" argument to its logical conclusion. If states are the only ones to have any say whatsoever in marriage, that federal constitutional rights do not apply, then a state can ban blacks from marrying. You don't get to cry "foul" when your own argument is taken to its own abhorrent conclusion. <br /><br />Nor do you get to say you're for equal protection when you're trying to deny equal protection to others, including the editor of this blog. You don't far to invoke Indiana's equal protection provision when your entire argument is about the states' ability to deny equal protection.<br /><br />Finally, you don't get to cry over "name-calling" when you're too much of a coward to attach your own name to your posts. Not that it matters. Judging by the lack of intelligence in your "anonymous" posts I think your identity is becoming more and more clear.<br /><br />Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-25369652663370783442014-06-28T21:01:04.776-05:002014-06-28T21:01:04.776-05:00To Jeff Cox: I'd encourage you to take a midd...To Jeff Cox: I'd encourage you to take a middle-school civics class so you may better understand our form of government. The framers of The Constitution brought the states together to form a single country, for limited purposes that the states agreed on. A Bill of Rights was passed containing a specific 10th Amendment that stated if the Constitution did not grant The Federal Government authority nor prohibit something, it is up to The States to decide.<br /><br />You must realize that you have no basis for your argument when you try to put a spin on the truth. A truth that is so important that our Blog Owner has posted it in the Advance Indiana masthead. <i>"Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: <b>all people are created equal</b>"</i><br /><br />The Indiana Constitution states in Article I, Paragraph I, <i>"We declare that all <b>people are created equal</b>..."</i> That alone just blew your convoluted spin out of the thread! You can't win this one, Jeff. The Indiana Constitution prohibits racial discrimination, as you suggest it stops certain races from being married. Look around you, Jeff Cox, Indiana has equal protection of laws and all people have the same chance to get married under the law with no regard to race. It has been said that when someone has no merit to their cause, they throw in the race-card. Well, Jeff Cox threw in the race-card, and obviously has no merit.<br /><br />The Constitution of The United States, without dispute, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, left marriage to the states, just like incorporation of a business, and most other matters. <br /><br />One final thought, <b>Jeff Cox</b>: Your post 5:29 began with the <b>race-card</b> and ended with <b>name-calling</b>.<br /><br />Jeff Cox uses argumentum ad hominem, a general category of fallacies in which he tries to reject the truth on the basis of some irrelevant spun-off fact about the person presenting the argument. Jeff Cox dropped the ever-emotionally appealing race-card, so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it may carry belief without any valid argument, supporting information or reason. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-82776618864134357772014-06-28T20:52:34.851-05:002014-06-28T20:52:34.851-05:00Anonymous 8:13,
And yet still more than enough to ...Anonymous 8:13,<br />And yet still more than enough to rebut the ridiculous "constitutional" arguments made here.Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-42152004643091625612014-06-28T20:13:40.197-05:002014-06-28T20:13:40.197-05:00Very weak responses, Jeff.Very weak responses, Jeff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-39415411909762585952014-06-28T17:29:29.451-05:002014-06-28T17:29:29.451-05:00Anonymous 2:57,
So, in your "constitutional&...Anonymous 2:57,<br /><br />So, in your "constitutional" view, a state can ban blacks from marrying. After all, marriage is only a state issue. How Dred Scott of you.Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-38665960449788332292014-06-28T15:32:40.621-05:002014-06-28T15:32:40.621-05:00Anonymous 12:43,
I read your "argument."...Anonymous 12:43,<br /><br />I read your "argument." It amounts to "marriage is about having babies. Nothing more." Congratulations. You have just insulted every childless couple in America and reduced marriage to a biological mechanism, which is what it was in the Middle Ages. Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-78057144879671488992014-06-28T15:28:27.055-05:002014-06-28T15:28:27.055-05:00Anonymous 12:38,
Abortion rights apply to all as ...Anonymous 12:38,<br /><br />Abortion rights apply to all as well. Therefore, using your logic, a man should be able to get an abortion.Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-78709150794877688102014-06-28T14:57:34.766-05:002014-06-28T14:57:34.766-05:00Jeff Cox: The 14th Amendment has nothing to do wi...Jeff Cox: The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact the Constitution specifies that: <i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <b>reserved to the States</b> respectively, or to the people."</i><br /><br />Sorry, Jeff. The Constitution specifies that marriage is an issue for The States to decide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-11110854267333204012014-06-28T12:38:40.579-05:002014-06-28T12:38:40.579-05:00Cox, how does "equal protection," in any...Cox, how does "equal protection," in any way, come anywhere near governing or concerning gay marriage? Indiana's marriage laws quite clearly apply equally to all. I don't see any matter on which you can be confused; neither do I grant any basis for your argument. <br /><br />Was gay marriage discussed during the proposal and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment? The amendment would have been discussed in Congress, in the vibrant press of the day and in every state house. Can you find a single contemporaneous mention to gay marriage in any of these extensive debates and discussions?<br /><br />You're going to have to do more than ask a bare question to carry your point. You currently stand a long way from proving your claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-20091100347816458322014-06-28T09:26:15.320-05:002014-06-28T09:26:15.320-05:00Hey anonymous 12:22, it's me anonymous 11:00. ...Hey anonymous 12:22, it's me anonymous 11:00. I'd like to jump onto what Jeff said and point out that putting in bold a punishment for death is fairly severe. It almost seems like a terroristic threat. Are you a Christian? Doesn't seem like you are trying to be very Christ like. Also, do you take literally everything written in Leviticus ?<br /><br />Why don't you propose that everything in the bible is interpreted into current law, including polygamy and slavery? <br /><br />Leviticus also states that it is wrong to bring a child into a church within 33days of its birth if it's a boy, 66if it's a girl.<br /><br />Jesus cam to teach us revolutionary compassion and HUMILITY. Not scriptural cherry picking.<br /><br />Found this online:<br /><br />Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.<br /><br />Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?<br /><br />1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)<br /><br />2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)<br /><br />3. Eating fat (3:17)<br /><br />4. Eating blood (3:17)<br /><br />5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)<br /><br />6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)<br /><br />7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)<br /><br />8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)<br /><br />9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)<br /><br />10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)<br /><br />11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)<br /><br />12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)<br /><br />13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)<br /><br />14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)<br /><br />15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)<br /><br />16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)<br /><br />17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)<br /><br />18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)<br /><br />19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)<br /><br />20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)<br /><br />21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)<br /><br />22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)<br /><br />23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)<br /><br />24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-59195413355759576282014-06-28T08:52:26.791-05:002014-06-28T08:52:26.791-05:00Anonymous 12:22,
Arguing that the teachings of a r...Anonymous 12:22,<br />Arguing that the teachings of a religious book should be the basis for state law enforceable by violence is what the Taliban and al Qaida do.Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-14212801001443460792014-06-28T08:50:31.210-05:002014-06-28T08:50:31.210-05:00Anonymous 11:42, what part of "equal protecti...Anonymous 11:42, what part of "equal protection" do you not understand? What part of "equal protection" says it's OK to deny gays the right to marry?Jeff Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896694141148386531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-11223646430514742232014-06-28T08:16:00.286-05:002014-06-28T08:16:00.286-05:00Veracity said:
"What happens in the bedroom ...Veracity said:<br /><br />"What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is not a public appearance of anything nor is it any of your business or my business."<br /><br />So Beth White was issuing licenses and performing wedding ceremonies in bedrooms? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-71209572378832093832014-06-28T08:14:36.910-05:002014-06-28T08:14:36.910-05:00Veracity, stopped splitting hairs. As the Star rep...Veracity, stopped splitting hairs. As the Star reported: <br /><br />Zoeller sought relief from the appellate court after initially filing a request for a stay in Young's court just hours after Wednesday's ruling. In a statement before the 7th Circuit issued the stay, Zoeller's office said it had expected an immediate ruling from Young on his request.<br /><br />"That has not yet happened," the statement said, "so the AG's Office today filed a separate emergency motion for stay in the higher court, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago."<br /><br />In its filing, the state's attorney said "without a stay, any same-sex marriages granted now might have their legal validity questioned later if the United States Supreme Court eventually were to rule in favor of states in upcoming legal challenges to marriage laws."<br /><br />And by the way, Veracity, the so-called "black helicopter conspiracy" meme that dishonest government officials and their protectors always throw our at their detractors was long ago disproven when the military finally admitted the existence of the high-tech helicopters after denying their existence of years.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-49837876464353816652014-06-28T07:45:39.517-05:002014-06-28T07:45:39.517-05:00Gary, you are wrong about Judge Young. The AG onl...Gary, you are wrong about Judge Young. The AG only filed a stay in two of the three cases and did not file the motion for stay in the third case until Friday morning. The AG asked for a blanket stay and as the AG acknowledged, there could be no effective stay of the judgment until all three cases were stayed. It was the AG who caused the delay.<br /><br />And while I love you and your blog, stop seeing black helicopters! Beth White's office, just like the rest of us, had an inkling of how the judge might rule when he found the State had no likelihood of success on the merits when he granted the initial preliminary injunction. Being a good officeholder, Beth White was prepared for when the decision came down. And, as one who was there, I can tell you, the cake did not appear immediately.<br /><br />And Anonymous 10:02, what the heck is a gay agenda? Are you fearful that armies of gays and lesbians are going to attempt to recruit you and yours? And what the heck is the "appearance of normalcy"? What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is not a public appearance of anything nor is it any of your business or my business. You think being heterosexual is normal and gay is abnormal? Well, I am a heterosexual who thinks being gay is like breathing and eating and hair color - it is part of who you are. Learning to live with people who are different from us is the "normalcy" towards which we should be striving.Veracityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15838693892583953431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-91827248975032057792014-06-28T05:51:38.505-05:002014-06-28T05:51:38.505-05:00There are some who had obtained their license befo...There are some who had obtained their license before the 7th Circuit ruling yesterday afternoon but still had not had an official ceremony<br />conducted as of then.<br /><br />Anyone care to guess what their status is now? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-34325723681849177302014-06-28T03:05:07.220-05:002014-06-28T03:05:07.220-05:00An honest question here, but where is straight mar...An honest question here, but where is straight marriage mentioned or specifically protected in the Constitution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-77177416610089037712014-06-28T00:24:05.154-05:002014-06-28T00:24:05.154-05:00Leftist judicial activism is cause for Impeachment...Leftist judicial activism is cause for Impeachment. All judges who have thus far abandoned their oath of office, should be impeached from office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com